The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime and Justice [5 ed.] 2020941787, 9781544348278

Table of contents :
Preface and Acknowledgments
New to This Edition
About the Author
PART I • Introduction
Chapter 1 • Gendering Criminology Through an Intersectional Lens
Diversity Among Women and Girls
What Is Feminism?
Women and Girls’ Invisibility
Women and Girls as Offenders
Women and Girls as Victims
Women as Professionals in the Criminal Legal System
Blurring of Boundaries of Women’s Experiences in Crime
Sex Versus Gender
What Are Feminist Methods?
The Effect of Societal Images on Women Regarding Crime
Summary
PART II • Women and Girls’ Offending
Chapter 2 • Theories Part I: Positivist, Evolutionary, Strain, Differential Association, Social Control, and Women’s Emancipation Theories
The Original and Positivist Studies
Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909)
W. I. Thomas (1863–1947), Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), and Otto Pollak (1908–1998)
The Legacies of the Positivist Theorists From the 1960s and 1970s
Biosocial and Evolutionary (Psychological) Theories (BSETs)
BSET as an Explanation of Sexual Abuse
BSET as an Explanation of Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA)
Feminist and Other Responses to the Application of BSET to Gender-Based Abuses
Strain Theories
Traditional Strain Theory (TST)
Opportunity Theory (OT)
General Strain Theory (GST)
Differential Association Theory (DAT) and Social Learning Theory (SLT)
Differential Association Theory (DAT)
Social Learning Theory (SLT)
Social Control Theories (SCTs)
Social Bond Theory (SBT): Conventional Ties
A General Theory of Crime (GTC): Self-Control
Power-Control Theory (PCT): Gendered Practices of Parents and Parenting
Women’s Liberation/Emancipation Hypothesis (WLEH)
Summary
Chapter 3 • Theories Part II: Critical, Labeling, Cycle of Violence, Life Course, Pathways, and Masculinity Theories
Agency and Resiliency
Critical Theories
Critical Criminology Theory (CCT)
Critical Race Theory (CRT)
Critical Race Feminist Theory (CRFT)
Labeling Theory (LT)
Advancing LT
Gender Applications of LT
Developmental and Adverse Life Events Theories
Cycle of Violence Theory (CVT)
Life Course Theory (LCT)
Pathways Theory (PT)
Studies Consistent With PT That Preceded the Naming of PT
Patterns and Advancement of PT
Masculinity Theory (MT)
Summary
Chapter 4 • Accounting for Gender–Crime Patterns
Measuring Crime
2009–2018 Arrest Rates From the UCR
Documenting and Assessing Gender Patterns in Offending Over Time
The Roles of Gender Regarding Co-Offenders, Age, Race, Class, Sexuality, and Mental Illness
Co-Offending
Age and Juvenile Delinquency
Intersections With Race/Ethnicity and Class
Sexuality and Gender Identity
Serious Mental Illness (SMI)
Summary
Chapter 5 • The Context of Women and Girls’ Offending for Specific Crimes
Drugs and Alcohol: Substance Use, Abuse, and Selling (SUAS)
Acquiring and Reasons for Trying and Using Substances
Theft, Burglary, and Robbery
Theft
Burglary
Robbery
White-Collar Crimes (WCCs)
Sex Work and Prostitution
Aggression and Assault
Child Abductions/Kidnappings
Homicides
Intimate Partner Homicides (IPHs)
Filicides
Girls and Women in Gangs
A Brief History of Feminist Gang Scholarship
Gangs and Criminal Behavior
Why Girls Join Gangs
How Boys in Gangs Treat Girls in Gangs
Bargaining With Patriarchy
Summary
Chapter 6 • Processing Women and Girls in the Criminal Legal System
Hypotheses of Gender Discrimination in the CLS
Chivalry Is Complicated
The Legacy of Racism and Confounding Measures of Race/Ethnicity
Criminal Laws and Gender Discrimination
Three Means of Gender Discrimination in Criminal Laws
The Muncy Act and Legacy in Indeterminate Criminal Sentencing Laws
Processing Youthful Defendants/Offenders
Reforms in the Processing of Youthful Defendants as Status Offenders
Non-Status Offense Delinquency
Empirical Findings on Gender Differences in Adult Crime Processing
The Presence of Gender Bias in the Various Stages of the Adult CLS
Gender Differences in Crime Processing Based on the Type of Offense
Chivalry Remains Complicated
Extralegal and Cultural Variables and Support for the Chivalrous Corollary Selectivity Hypothesis
Summary
Chapter 7 • Incarcerating, Punishing, and “Treating” Offending Women and Girls
The History of Incarcerating Women and Girls
Punishment
Women’s Prison Reform
Sex-Segregated Custodial Prisons
Racist Segregation and Treatment in Institutions for Girls and Women
Women’s Prisons Since the 1960s
Rates of Incarceration
Gender Comparisons in Incarceration Rates Over Time
Gender Comparisons in Incarceration Offenses
The Significance yet Invisibility in U.S. Incarceration Data on the Intersections of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Class
The Women’s Prison Regime
Parenthood: A Gender Difference Among Prisoners
Impacts on the Children of Incarcerated Mothers
Losing Custody/Children
Prison Nurseries
Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs
Health Needs and Access to Services
HIV/AIDS
Breast, Gynecological, Prenatal, Pregnancy, and Postpartum Health Care
The “Window on the Body” and Dental Health
Incarcerated Women and Girls With Disabilities
Mental Health Problems
The Prison Subculture
Sexual Abuse of Women and Girls While Incarcerated
Summary
PART III • Gender-based Abuse
Chapter 8 • Gender-Based Abuse (GBA)
Defining Gender-Based Abuse (GBA)
The Development of GBA as a Social Problem and Its Relationship to Depression
The Wide Range of GBAs
Culture, Gender Inequality, and GBA
The Significance of a Sexist Culture
The Culture of Victim-Blaming and GBA
The Relationship Between Gender Inequality and GBA
Rates of GBA and the Fear of Crime
Focusing on Intersectional GBA: The History and Its Legacy
Trafficking
Corporate and Environmental GBA
Breast Implant GBA
Egg Donor GBA
Environmental/Green GBA
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)
What Does Feminist Reform Look Like?
Summary
Chapter 9 • Focusing on Sexual Abuse
Defining Sexual Abuse
Consent, Coercion, and Force
Drug and Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Abuse (DAFSA)
Historical Developments in Defining Rape and Other Sexual Abuses
Another Look at Rape Myths and a Rape Culture
Statistics on Sexual Abuse
Child Sexual Abuse (CSA)
College Sexual Abuse
Marital/Spousal/Partner Rape
Sexual Harassment
Street Harassment
From Professor Anita Hill to Hollywood
Sexual Harassment Victim–Offender Relationships
Impacts of Sexual Harassment
Sexual Abuse and the Criminal Legal System (CLS)
Police, Prosecutor, and Court Obsessions With Survivors’ Characteristics and Behaviors
Survivors’ Participation With the CLS
Sexual Assault Kits (SAKs)
Survivors’ Wishes and Rights
In-Prison Sexual Abuse
The Myths Surrounding False Rape Charges
The Police
The Court Process, or Whose Trial Is It Anyway?
Nonprofit Agencies Designed to Assist Sexual Abuse Survivors
Summary
Chapter 10 • Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking
Defining Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking
Defining Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA)
Defining Stalking
The Significance of Coercion/Coercive Control
IPA Tactics
Physical IPA
Sexual IPA
Pregnancy IPA
Psychological/Emotional Abuse
The Additional IPA Tactics Based on Further Marginality
Stalking Tactics
The Historical Identification of IPA and Stalking as Social Problems
The Frequency of IPA and Stalking
IPA Rates
Stalking Rates
Walker’s Cycle Theory of Violence
IPA and Stalking Abusers
Who Are the Intimate Partner Abusers?
Who Are the Stalkers?
IPA and Stalking Victims/Survivors
Inhibitors to Leaving/Returning to an Abusive Relationship and What Helps Survivors Leave
Risk Factors for Staying With and Leaving IP Abusers
Characteristics Related to IPA Survivors’ Staying/Leaving Decisions
IPA and Stalking and the Criminal Legal System (CLS)
The Police
Protection/Restraining Orders (POs)
The Courts
Nonprofit Agencies and Laws Designed to Assist IPA and Stalking Survivors
Summary
PART IV • Women Working in the Criminal Legal system
Chapter 11 • Women Working in Prisons and Jails
A Brief History of Sex/Gender Discrimination in the Paid Labor Force
Comparing Racial and Gender Workplace Discrimination
The Matron Role: Women’s Breaking Into CLS Jobs Through Sexist Stereotypical Positions
Women as Token Workers
Women Trailblazers
The Significant Role of Legislative and Court Rulings on Women’s Work in the CLS
Prisoner Privacy and Prison Safety: Legal Resistance to Women Guards
Women Guards’ Assumed Threat to Prison Security/Safety
(Men) Prisoners’ Rights to Privacy
Gender Similarities and Differences in Guards’ Job Performance and Attitudes
Resistance to Women Guards and Guards’ Views of Gender and the Job
Job Performance and Attitudes
Job Satisfaction and Stress
Summary
Chapter 12 • Women Working in Policing and Law Enforcement
What Is Policing?
Women Breaking Into Police Work
Comparisons Between Women Breaking Into Policing With Women Breaking Into Prison/Jail Work
Phases and Stages of Women’s Entry Into Policing
The First Women Police in the United States and Globally
Police Officer Identities
Title VII and Other Legislation and Policies
Resistance to Women in Policing
Sexual Harassment
Gender and Stress
Gender Differences in Job Performance
Classifications of Women Police Officers
Women’s Representation in Policing
Recruitment and Retention
Promotion
The Intersection of Racism and Sexual Identity With Gender and Sexism
Racism
Heterosexism/Homophobia/Transphobia
Summary
Chapter 13 • Women Working in the Courts
The History of Women on Juries
The History of Women’s Access to Legal Education and Training
(Mostly White) Women’s Entry Into Legal Education and Practice
Women of Color’s Entry Into Legal Education and Practice
Women in Law Schools Since the 1950s
Women Attorneys
The Number of Women Attorneys
The Experiences of Women Attorneys
Gender Differences in Job Performance
Hiring, Job Placements, Retention, and Attrition: Leaky Pipes and Glass Ceilings
The Gendered Implications of Marital and Family Status for Lawyers
Gendered Income Gaps
Mentoring and Job Satisfaction
The Gendered Nature of Sanctions Against Lawyers
Women Judges
Looking for Gender Differences in Judges’ Decision-Making
Women Law Professors
Summary
PART V • Conclusions
Chapter 14 • Effecting Change
Improving Theoretical Approaches
Transformative Critical Feminist Criminology
Combining Feminist-Friendly Theories in the Same Study
Improving Research Methods
Two Strategies Cutting Across Offending, Victimization, and CLS Workers
Community-Coordinated Responses (CCRs) and Restorative Justice (RJ) Models
Trauma-Informed Care (TIC)
Changing the Risks for and Responses to Girls and Women’s Offending
Changing Responses to Gender-Based Abuse (GBA)
Responding to Sexual Abuse
Responding to Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA)
Resistance and Fighting Back
Changes for Women Working in the Criminal Legal System (CLS)
Summary
References
Index

Citation preview

THE INVISIBLE WOMAN Fifth Edition

This book is a dedicated to the Missing, Murdered, and surviving Indigenous Women and Girls (#MMIWG) and Helen M. Eigenberg (1958–2019)

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

THE INVISIBLE WOMAN Gender, Crime, and Justice Fifth Edition Joanne Belknap The University of Colorado Boulder

Copyright © 2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All third party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are included solely for the purpose of illustration and are the property of their respective owners. Reference to these trademarks in no way indicates any relationship with, or endorsement by, the trademark owner.

For Information: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: [email protected] SAGE Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London, EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12 China Square Central Singapore 048423 Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN): 2020941787 ISBN 978-1-5443-4827-8 Printed in the United States of America This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Jessica Miller Editorial Assistant: Sarah Wilson Content Development Editor: Laura Kearns Production Editor: Rebecca Lee Copy Editor: Colleen Brennan Typesetter: Hurix Digital Indexer: Integra Cover Designer: Lysa Becker Marketing Manager: Jillian Ragusa

BRIEF CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgments New to This Edition About the Author PART I • Introduction Chapter 1 • Gendering Criminology Through an Intersectional Lens PART II • Women and Girls’ Offending Chapter 2 • Theories Part I: Positivist, Evolutionary, Strain, Differential Association, Social Control, and Women’s Emancipation Theories Chapter 3 • Theories Part II: Critical, Labeling, Cycle of Violence, Life Course, Pathways, and Masculinity Theories Chapter 4 • Accounting for Gender–Crime Patterns Chapter 5 • The Context of Women and Girls’ Offending for Specific Crimes Chapter 6 • Processing Women and Girls in the Criminal Legal System Chapter 7 • Incarcerating, Punishing, and “Treating” Offending Women and Girls PART III • gender-based Abuse Chapter 8 • Gender-Based Abuse (GBA) Chapter 9 • Focusing on Sexual Abuse Chapter 10 • Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking PART IV • Women Working in the Criminal Legal System Chapter 11 • Women Working in Prisons and Jails Chapter 12 • Women Working in Policing and Law Enforcement Chapter 13 • Women Working in the Courts PART V • Conclusions Chapter 14 • Effecting Change References Index

DETAILED CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgments New to This Edition About the Author PART I • Introduction Chapter 1 • Gendering Criminology Through an Intersectional Lens Diversity Among Women and Girls What Is Feminism? Women and Girls’ Invisibility Women and Girls as Offenders Women and Girls as Victims Women as Professionals in the Criminal Legal System Blurring of Boundaries of Women’s Experiences in Crime Sex Versus Gender What Are Feminist Methods? The Effect of Societal Images on Women Regarding Crime Summary PART II • Women and Girls’ Offending Chapter 2 • Theories Part I: Positivist, Evolutionary, Strain, Differential Association, Social Control, and Women’s Emancipation Theories The Original and Positivist Studies Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909) W. I. Thomas (1863–1947), Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), and Otto Pollak (1908–1998) The Legacies of the Positivist Theorists From the 1960s and 1970s Biosocial and Evolutionary (Psychological) Theories (BSETs) BSET as an Explanation of Sexual Abuse BSET as an Explanation of Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) Feminist and Other Responses to the Application of BSET to Gender-Based Abuses Strain Theories Traditional Strain Theory (TST)

Opportunity Theory (OT) General Strain Theory (GST) Differential Association Theory (DAT) and Social Learning Theory (SLT) Differential Association Theory (DAT) Social Learning Theory (SLT) Social Control Theories (SCTs) Social Bond Theory (SBT): Conventional Ties A General Theory of Crime (GTC): Self-Control Power-Control Theory (PCT): Gendered Practices of Parents and Parenting Women’s Liberation/Emancipation Hypothesis (WLEH) Summary Chapter 3 • Theories Part II: Critical, Labeling, Cycle of Violence, Life Course, Pathways, and Masculinity Theories Agency and Resiliency Critical Theories Critical Criminology Theory (CCT) Critical Race Theory (CRT) Critical Race Feminist Theory (CRFT) Labeling Theory (LT) Advancing LT Gender Applications of LT Developmental and Adverse Life Events Theories Cycle of Violence Theory (CVT) Life Course Theory (LCT) Pathways Theory (PT) Studies Consistent With PT That Preceded the Naming of PT Patterns and Advancement of PT Masculinity Theory (MT) Summary Chapter 4 • Accounting for Gender–Crime Patterns Measuring Crime 2009–2018 Arrest Rates From the UCR Documenting and Assessing Gender Patterns in Offending Over Time The Roles of Gender Regarding Co-Offenders, Age, Race, Class, Sexuality, and Mental Illness Co-Offending Age and Juvenile Delinquency Intersections With Race/Ethnicity and Class Sexuality and Gender Identity

Serious Mental Illness (SMI) Summary Chapter 5 • The Context of Women and Girls’ Offending for Specific Crimes Drugs and Alcohol: Substance Use, Abuse, and Selling (SUAS) Acquiring and Reasons for Trying and Using Substances Theft, Burglary, and Robbery Theft Burglary Robbery White-Collar Crimes (WCCs) Sex Work and Prostitution Aggression and Assault Child Abductions/Kidnappings Homicides Intimate Partner Homicides (IPHs) Filicides Girls and Women in Gangs A Brief History of Feminist Gang Scholarship Gangs and Criminal Behavior Why Girls Join Gangs How Boys in Gangs Treat Girls in Gangs Bargaining With Patriarchy Summary Chapter 6 • Processing Women and Girls in the Criminal Legal System Hypotheses of Gender Discrimination in the CLS Chivalry Is Complicated The Legacy of Racism and Confounding Measures of Race/Ethnicity Criminal Laws and Gender Discrimination Three Means of Gender Discrimination in Criminal Laws The Muncy Act and Legacy in Indeterminate Criminal Sentencing Laws Processing Youthful Defendants/Offenders Reforms in the Processing of Youthful Defendants as Status Offenders Non-Status Offense Delinquency Empirical Findings on Gender Differences in Adult Crime Processing

The Presence of Gender Bias in the Various Stages of the Adult CLS Gender Differences in Crime Processing Based on the Type of Offense Chivalry Remains Complicated Extralegal and Cultural Variables and Support for the Chivalrous Corollary Selectivity Hypothesis Summary Chapter 7 • Incarcerating, Punishing, and “Treating” Offending Women and Girls The History of Incarcerating Women and Girls Punishment Women’s Prison Reform Sex-Segregated Custodial Prisons Racist Segregation and Treatment in Institutions for Girls and Women Women’s Prisons Since the 1960s Rates of Incarceration Gender Comparisons in Incarceration Rates Over Time Gender Comparisons in Incarceration Offenses The Significance yet Invisibility in U.S. Incarceration Data on the Intersections of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Class The Women’s Prison Regime Parenthood: A Gender Difference Among Prisoners Impacts on the Children of Incarcerated Mothers Losing Custody/Children Prison Nurseries Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs Health Needs and Access to Services HIV/AIDS Breast, Gynecological, Prenatal, Pregnancy, and Postpartum Health Care The “Window on the Body” and Dental Health Incarcerated Women and Girls With Disabilities Mental Health Problems The Prison Subculture Sexual Abuse of Women and Girls While Incarcerated Summary PART III • Gender-based Abuse Chapter 8 • Gender-Based Abuse (GBA)

Defining Gender-Based Abuse (GBA) The Development of GBA as a Social Problem and Its Relationship to Depression The Wide Range of GBAs Culture, Gender Inequality, and GBA The Significance of a Sexist Culture The Culture of Victim-Blaming and GBA The Relationship Between Gender Inequality and GBA Rates of GBA and the Fear of Crime Focusing on Intersectional GBA: The History and Its Legacy Trafficking Corporate and Environmental GBA Breast Implant GBA Egg Donor GBA Environmental/Green GBA Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) What Does Feminist Reform Look Like? Summary Chapter 9 • Focusing on Sexual Abuse Defining Sexual Abuse Consent, Coercion, and Force Drug and Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Abuse (DAFSA) Historical Developments in Defining Rape and Other Sexual Abuses Another Look at Rape Myths and a Rape Culture Statistics on Sexual Abuse Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) College Sexual Abuse Marital/Spousal/Partner Rape Sexual Harassment Street Harassment From Professor Anita Hill to Hollywood Sexual Harassment Victim–Offender Relationships Impacts of Sexual Harassment Sexual Abuse and the Criminal Legal System (CLS) Police, Prosecutor, and Court Obsessions With Survivors’ Characteristics and Behaviors Survivors’ Participation With the CLS Sexual Assault Kits (SAKs)

Survivors’ Wishes and Rights In-Prison Sexual Abuse The Myths Surrounding False Rape Charges The Police The Court Process, or Whose Trial Is It Anyway? Nonprofit Agencies Designed to Assist Sexual Abuse Survivors Summary Chapter 10 • Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking Defining Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking Defining Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) Defining Stalking The Significance of Coercion/Coercive Control IPA Tactics Physical IPA Sexual IPA Pregnancy IPA Psychological/Emotional Abuse The Additional IPA Tactics Based on Further Marginality Stalking Tactics The Historical Identification of IPA and Stalking as Social Problems The Frequency of IPA and Stalking IPA Rates Stalking Rates Walker’s Cycle Theory of Violence IPA and Stalking Abusers Who Are the Intimate Partner Abusers? Who Are the Stalkers? IPA and Stalking Victims/Survivors Inhibitors to Leaving/Returning to an Abusive Relationship and What Helps Survivors Leave Risk Factors for Staying With and Leaving IP Abusers Characteristics Related to IPA Survivors’ Staying/Leaving Decisions IPA and Stalking and the Criminal Legal System (CLS) The Police Protection/Restraining Orders (POs) The Courts Nonprofit Agencies and Laws Designed to Assist IPA and Stalking Survivors

Summary PART IV • Women Working in the Criminal Legal system Chapter 11 • Women Working in Prisons and Jails A Brief History of Sex/Gender Discrimination in the Paid Labor Force Comparing Racial and Gender Workplace Discrimination The Matron Role: Women’s Breaking Into CLS Jobs Through Sexist Stereotypical Positions Women as Token Workers Women Trailblazers The Significant Role of Legislative and Court Rulings on Women’s Work in the CLS Prisoner Privacy and Prison Safety: Legal Resistance to Women Guards Women Guards’ Assumed Threat to Prison Security/Safety (Men) Prisoners’ Rights to Privacy Gender Similarities and Differences in Guards’ Job Performance and Attitudes Resistance to Women Guards and Guards’ Views of Gender and the Job Job Performance and Attitudes Job Satisfaction and Stress Summary Chapter 12 • Women Working in Policing and Law Enforcement What Is Policing? Women Breaking Into Police Work Comparisons Between Women Breaking Into Policing With Women Breaking Into Prison/Jail Work Phases and Stages of Women’s Entry Into Policing The First Women Police in the United States and Globally Police Officer Identities Title VII and Other Legislation and Policies Resistance to Women in Policing Sexual Harassment Gender and Stress Gender Differences in Job Performance Classifications of Women Police Officers Women’s Representation in Policing

Recruitment and Retention Promotion The Intersection of Racism and Sexual Identity With Gender and Sexism Racism Heterosexism/Homophobia/Transphobia Summary Chapter 13 • Women Working in the Courts The History of Women on Juries The History of Women’s Access to Legal Education and Training (Mostly White) Women’s Entry Into Legal Education and Practice Women of Color’s Entry Into Legal Education and Practice Women in Law Schools Since the 1950s Women Attorneys The Number of Women Attorneys The Experiences of Women Attorneys Gender Differences in Job Performance Hiring, Job Placements, Retention, and Attrition: Leaky Pipes and Glass Ceilings The Gendered Implications of Marital and Family Status for Lawyers Gendered Income Gaps Mentoring and Job Satisfaction The Gendered Nature of Sanctions Against Lawyers Women Judges Looking for Gender Differences in Judges’ Decision-Making Women Law Professors Summary PART V • Conclusions Chapter 14 • Effecting Change Improving Theoretical Approaches Transformative Critical Feminist Criminology Combining Feminist-Friendly Theories in the Same Study Improving Research Methods Two Strategies Cutting Across Offending, Victimization, and CLS Workers

Community-Coordinated Responses (CCRs) and Restorative Justice (RJ) Models Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) Changing the Risks for and Responses to Girls and Women’s Offending Changing Responses to Gender-Based Abuse (GBA) Responding to Sexual Abuse Responding to Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) Resistance and Fighting Back Changes for Women Working in the Criminal Legal System (CLS) Summary References Index

• PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • This is the fifth edition of The Invisible Woman. It is remarkable and inspiring how much feminist, intersectional, and critical criminologies have changed since the first edition, and especially in the time since I submitted the fourth edition in 2014. So many more scholars whose representation has been missing from criminology scholarship have made incredible contributions, truly shifting the lens of this field. In fact, it was impossible to read, much less incorporate, all the research since 2014 on gender and offending, victimization, and criminal legal system (CLS) workers. For this, I apologize because I likely missed some publications I should have included. One of the other differences in the past six years is far more scholarship on LGBTQI+ criminology. I have always attempted to include what we now call queer criminology and count myself among those who have contributed to it. With this edition there was so much more queer, feminist, intersectional, and even environmental criminology to add. Although it is so encouraging that the lens of criminology has significantly expanded from the almost all cisgender white men who published in criminology journals and attended the criminology conferences when I started as a graduate student in 1981, this expansion has a long way to go in representing disparate people as researchers and study participants. Given the significance of positionality and othering by researchers, it is vital to expand the inclusion of scholars based on the intersections of gender, race, class, sexuality, and so on. Turning to my more personal acknowledgments, I always say I have the best partner, child, sister, friends, and current and former students of anyone I’ve known. Scott Summers, we are coming up on 30 years of nonmarital bliss and you have encouraged me to finish every edition, including the first edition that arrived in the mail the same month our amazing Casey Belknap-Summers was born. Casey, I have truly loved every age and you made parenting easy. Madelyn Strahan, you’ve been a great addition to our family of three, and I’m so appreciative of all the time you and Casey spend with us. We sure do know how to vacation!

I dedicated the last edition of this book to my sister, Sandra Dangler, and to one of the survivors of the 1963 Birmingham church bombing, Sarah Collins Rudolph, and in memory of her sister Addie Mae Collins. The Ku Klux Klan not only murdered Addie May Collins but blinded Sarah Collins Rudolph in one eye in the bombing. Sandy, you’re the best mita ever, and Sarah, it is such an honor to have become friends of you and your wonderful husband, George Rudolph, since I sent you the fourth edition of this book. I am humbled and grateful. This edition is dedicated to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG), a group which includes Indigenous people who are nonbinary/trans and have been victims of misogynistic, racist, nationalistic, and homophobic murders. This dedication also expresses support for those Indigenous women, girls, and queer folks who have survived these hateful acts. Although the movement started in Canada, the phenomenon of these horrific crimes is also prevalent in the United States. This edition is also dedicated to my dear friend, Helen Eigenberg, who died of cancer in 2019. Helen, Nancy Wonders, Mona Danner, and I met at the “crim” conferences through the American Society of Criminology’s (ASC’s) Division on Women and Crime (DWC) decades ago and realized we were all born in 1958. We’ve been through a lot together in both our work and personal lives (including three of us diagnosed with breast cancer since we first met). We became such solid friends and we were fortunate to have many long weekend vacations that had nothing to do with a crim conference. Helen was an amazing feminist scholar, teacher, and friend and could truly have been a stand-up comic had she wished. To learn more about Helen, go to https://ascdwc.com/2019/01/mourning-theloss-of-dr-helen-eigenberg/. I chose Helen to interview me for the ASC Oral History project, which she did about six weeks before she died (https://www.asc41.com/videos/Oral_History/Joanne_Belknap.html). I miss her immensely. Helen, Mona, Nancy, and the sisterhood of the DWC have been a mainstay of my career and personal life. I’m incredibly grateful to my colleagues in the University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) Department of Ethnic Studies (DES), who allowed me to change my tenure line to this great department! I’ve worked in many academic departments and DES has been by far the best in every way—the most concerned with both teaching and

activism, while holding rigorous research standards and publishing such critical and excellent scholarship. I specifically want to thank my “work husband” in Ethnic Studies, Nick Villanueva (even though he already has a husband and I’ve never had a husband), for his big heart, teaching and research advice, and open door. My DES colleagues made me be a better scholar and teacher and have been incredibly supportive of my Inside-Out Prison Exchange classes. It has been a huge honor to teach these classes (the only free college classes for prisoners in Colorado at the time I was teaching them, thanks to funding from the CU Boulder Office of Community Engagement). The Inside-Out classes allowed me to experience the kindness and brilliance of so many incarcerated women and men and to meet the amazing prison teachers Nadine Kerstetter and David Russell. I’m also hugely grateful to Lindsay Roberts, librarian extraordinaire, who chased down citations I couldn’t find and spent so much time with me in the library, on the phone, and on Zoom. The friends and family that I have not already listed that I thank are (mostly alphabetically) Joan Antunes, Ronette Bachman, Claudia Bayliff, Jon Belknap, Bonnie Berry, Susan Buckingham, Lynette Carpenter, Terry Dangler, Emmanuel David, Anne DePrince, Jenn Doe, Patrick Greaney, Jana Kappelar, Shoni and Gary Kahn, DoraLee Larson, Vera Lopez, Nikhil Mankekar, Gail McGarry, Janie McKenzie, Polly McLean, Merry Morash, Onye Ozuzu, Jane and Fred Pampel, Joe Prizio, Sheetal Ranjan, Jan Roman, Cynthia Russell, Bernadette Stewart, Cris Sullivan, Jason Williams, Patti Witte, Edie Zagona, and “Upper Case,” Sue, Jamie, and Erin Summers. Regarding undergraduate and graduate students, I’ve been a professor since 1986 and taught so many who have significantly changed my life for the better. I hope you know who you are because I’m worried to make a list and forget someone. Thank you to the “older” ones for staying in touch with me all these decades, and to the newer ones who at least act like you think I’m funny and a good mentor. As I’ve said to my students the past few years: “No pressure, but my generation has made a mess of things, especially the criminal legal system, and you all have to fix it.” And Jessica Miller, I am so immensely grateful to you! Thank you for contacting me to switch this edition of The Invisible Woman to SAGE! This edition is by far the best and I’m grateful for your confidence in me, as well as your patience and guidance. I am also so appreciative of the careful copyediting and advice from Colleen Brennan and Rebecca Y. Lee after the manuscript left my hands.

I submitted this manuscript right as the COVID-19 pandemic was causing lockdowns in the United States. Many of us are at home and working remotely, but there are so many people who can’t work from home, have lost their jobs, already didn’t have adequate health care, are incarcerated, are living with an abusive family member, and made more invisible and marginalized as a result of this pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the most marginalized, including prisoners, is being documented, although there is far less press about women’s prisons. In my final edits of this preface, I also want to acknowledge the profound successes the #BlackLivesMatter movement has had, and will likely continue to have, including changing police practices and tearing down racist statutes, following the lynching of Ahmaud Arbery and the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. I wish I had time to tie this critical period of criminal legal system accountability into this edition of the book, but I don’t (and asked to add these few sentences at the very last hour). This is giving me hope about structural changes in policing that are beyond the expansion of community policing and adding more women, queer folks, and people of Color to law enforcement, but actually changing who responds to the mentally ill, more funding for education and less for law enforcement, and so on. SAGE and the author would also like to thank the following reviewers for their input and for helping improve the fifth edition: Benjamin D. Albers, Bridgewater College Robbin Day Brooks, Arizona State University J. Robert Duke, University of Alaska Fairbanks Angelina Inesia-Forde, Walden University Christina Mancini, Virginia Commonwealth University Ariane Prohaska, University of Alabama

• NEW TO THIS EDITION • This edition is heavily updated with research and data that have appeared since the last edition was published in 2014. Some of the chapter titles have changed because the foci have changed. Topics new to this edition include anti-carceral/abolitionist feminism, structural sexism, adultification, environmental criminology, the #MeToo movement, revenge porn, and trauma-informed care. Given that queer criminology has grown, there is more information on this, as well. Finally, the previous edition had 13 chapters. In this edition, what was formerly Chapter 4 “A Gendered Account of Women and Girls’ Offending” is now two chapters: Chapter 4 “Accounting for Gender–Crime Patterns” and Chapter 5 “The Context of Women and Girls’ Offending.” The world charts included at the end of the previous chapters have been updated. They would have used so much space in the book (driving the costs up), that SAGE acquisitions editor Jessica Miller and I decided to make these available for free to the teachers and students who adopt this book. Specific differences by chapter include: Chapter 1, Gendering Criminology Through an Intersectional Lens, is updated and the title changed to reflect the broader focus on intersectionality, with new concepts including the Global South, the Global North, sex-positive criminology, carceral feminism, missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG), and structural sexism. Chapter 2, Theories Part I: Positivist, Evolutionary, Strain, Differential Association, Social Control, and Women’s Emancipation Theories, also changed titles and, along with the next chapter on theories, is reorganized and provides more recent tests of the theories. Chapter 3, Theories Part II: Critical, Labeling, Cycle of Violence, Life Course, Pathways, and Masculinity Theories, like Chapter 2, changed titles and is reorganized and provides more recent tests of the theories covered in this chapter. This chapter also includes three new figures. One is on critical race feminism;

another compares cycle of violence, pathways, and life course theories; and the last is Gunnison’s (2015) test of life course theory. Chapter 4, Accounting for Gender–Crime Patterns, has more recent data on U.S. arrest rates and patterns for many specific offenses over time. It introduces three steps to assessing, interpreting, and explaining gender-convergence patterns over time. Chapter 5, The Context of Women and Girls’ Offending for Specific Crimes, provides far more information on how the commission of various crimes is gendered. It includes a new figure on girls’ strategies for meth procurement based on Lopez and colleagues’ (2019) work, introduces the concept of “bargaining with the patriarchy,” and presents research on nonmedical prescription drug use and child abductions/kidnappings. Chapter 6, Processing Women and Girls in the Criminal Legal System, introduces new material on cultural variables, the complexity of chivalry, and the legacy of racism in confounding measures of crime. This chapter also addresses the necessity for statistical models to account for the intersections of gender with race, and the usefulness of separate statistical models for females and males to determine whether contributors to CLS outcome decisions are gendered. Chapter 7, Incarcerating, Punishing, and “Treating” Offending Women and Girls, is reorganized and provides updated data on gender and incarceration and introduces more research on the children of incarcerated women, including prison nurseries. Chapter 8, Gender-Based Abuse (GBA), is significantly reorganized and updated, introduces environmental criminology as it relates to feminist criminology, and addresses MMIWG as a GBA. Chapter 9, Focusing on Sexual Abuse, is reorganized and updated and introduces a new figure on child sexual assault victims and perpetrators. It includes more on street sexual harassment and introduces the changes from Professor Anita Hill’s ordeal to the #MeToo movement and the significance of

sexual abuse kits (SAKs). Anti-carceral feminists’ concerns with CLS responses are discussed, as is the extraordinarily high risk of sexual abuse victimization among trans women. Chapter 10, Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking, introduces a new section on additional IPA tactics by perpetrators against immigrants, LGBTQI+ individuals, and people with disabilities. A new figure summarizes the ways that IPA is a GBA among different-sex couples. IPA against trans and intersex individuals is introduced, as is anti-carceral feminists’ movements toward more decriminalization of domestic violence. Chapter 11, Women Working in Prisons and Jails, introduces how the growing visibility of nonbinary gender identities and rights should include women’s right to work in the CLS and summarizes recent research documenting sexism against women working in prisons and jails. Chapter 12, Women Working in Policing and Law Enforcement, includes women’s continued poor representation and advancements in police work, and the hostile workplace that is still all too common. It introduces Workman-Stark’s (2017) five steps of police identity formation, the link between communityoriented policing and how women “do” policing, and transphobia in policing. Chapter 13, Women Working in the Courts, similar to Chapters 11 and 12, documents the continued sexism faced by women working in the courts, particularly in law firms, particularly in terms of the introduced concept BigLaw. Women’s representation in law schools and as judges has improved. Chapter 14, Effecting Change, introduces the ecological model of victimization, offending, and working in the CLS; new figures on transformative critical feminist criminology; the concepts of trauma-informed care and digital documenting; and a section on improving research methods and community-coordinated responses.

• ABOUT THE AUTHOR • Joanne Belknap Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, received a PhD in Criminal Justice and Criminology from Michigan State University in 1986. She is both a Fellow and Past-President of the American Society of Criminology and has written numerous scholarly publications, most of which involve gender-based abuse and the connection between trauma and offending through an intersectional feminist lens. Dr. Belknap has secured almost 2 million dollars in grant money to conduct research on women, girls, and crime; served on state advisory boards for female offenders and women in prison; served on U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno’s Violence Against Women Committee; gave expert testimony to the Warren Christopher Commission investigating the Rodney King police brutality incident in Los Angeles; and taught college classes in women’s and men’s prisons through the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program. She has received numerous research, teaching, and service awards.

PART I INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 Gendering Criminology Through an Intersectional Lens

1 GENDERING CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH AN INTERSECTIONAL LENS The more stigmatized their social position, the easier it is to victimize them. The further a woman’s sexuality, age, class, criminal background, and race are from hegemonic norms, the more likely it is that they will be harmed—and the more likely that their harm will not be taken seriously by their community, by anti-violence programs, or by the general public. —Richie (2012, pp. 15–16)

This book presents the current state of women, girls, gender, and justice, in criminology (the study of crime), focusing on the United States. To understand this requires two approaches. First, it is necessary to comprehend historical developments of the status of women and girls in the home, society, and the workplace. Second, sexism does not occur in a vacuum; rather it intersects with race/ethnicity, class, sexuality, (dis)ability, immigration and nation status, and so on. Therefore, it is vital to use an intersectional approach to examine the impacts of gender (P. H. Collins & Bilge, 2016; Potter, 2015). To this end, this book includes relevant historical factors, many with lasting legacies, and addresses criminology through a gendered and intersectional lens. In addition to reporting the challenging state of justice in the past and present United States, this book also identifies successes and progress in theories, research, policies, and practice. Given that a larger portion of this book is more about the injustice than justice experienced by crime victims, defendants/offenders, and workers, the term criminal legal system is used in lieu of what many people refer to as the criminal justice system. In sum, most of this book reports on the unjust processing of girl and women victims and defendants/offenders, and the challenges of women working in the

criminal legal system as police, jail/prison staff, lawyers, and judges. However, advances in society, criminology, the criminal legal system, and justice will also be identified. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce readers to this book and to expose them to an overview of the important concepts and phenomena necessary to understand gender and crime. These significant concepts include a presentation of women and girls’ invisibility in criminology and criminal legal system studies and society, relevant concepts and definitions, and an understanding of how the images of women and girls in society have affected their experiences as victims, offenders, and professionals working in the criminal legal system. The bulk of The Invisible Woman is the three sections between the first and last chapters: offending (Section II), victimization (Section III), and criminal legal system workers (Section IV). The offending section, Section II, includes chapters on criminology theories (Chapters 2 and 3), gender patterns in offending and being labeled “offender” (Chapter 4), gendered contexts in offending (Chapter 5), gender differences in how the criminal legal system (CLS) processes offenders (Chapter 6), and gender differences in punishing and incarcerating offenders (Chapter 7). Section III, the victim section, is on gender-based abuses. Gender-based abuses (GBAs) are abuses committed disproportionately against women, girls, queer (LGBTQI+) and gender-nonconforming individuals. Chapter 8 introduces GBAs, Chapter 9 focuses on sexual victimizations (e.g., rape and sexual harassment), and Chapter 10 is on intimate partner abuse (also known as intimate partner violence and “domestic violence”) and stalking. Section IV is on women workers in the criminal legal system (CLS), with chapters devoted specifically to jail/prison work (Chapter 11), police work (Chapter 12), and court work (i.e., lawyers and judges) (Chapter 13). The book closes with Section V, a summary of advances that have been accomplished in gender and crime (Chapter 14).

DIVERSITY AMONG WOMEN AND GIRLS As stated in the first paragraph, understanding the effects of sexism cannot be conducted in a vacuum because sexism is not experienced the same by everyone. Rather, gender intersects with such characteristics as race/ethnicity, class, sexuality/sexual identity, (dis)ability, nationality, immigration status, age, and so on.

Significantly, gender role stereotypes, experiences, and opportunities vary for women and girls of different classes, races/ethnicities, (dis)abilities, sexualities, religions and nationalities (e.g., Arnold, 1990; Bachman, Zaykowski, Lanier, Poteyeva, & Kallmyer, 2010; Belknap, 2010; Belknap, Holsinger, & Little, 2012; Brennan, 2002; Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Chigwada-Bailey, 1997; C. F. Collins, 1997; P. H. Collins & Bilge, 2016; Corliss, Cochran, Mays, Greenland, & Seeman, 2009; Dorr, 2004; Garfield, 2005; Jones, 2010, 2018; Scherer & Reyns, 2019). Historically, feminist scholarship has focused too strongly on the lives and experiences of white, straight, middle-class women and girls, with missing, inadequate, or sometimes, offensive assessments of race/racism, class/classism, sexuality/homophobia, and other marginalizing characteristics. Significantly, research consistently documents how the greater the matrix of oppression (the more oppressed groups one is a member), the more marginalized and discriminated against the individual (P. H. Collins & Bilge, 2016; Richie, 2012). Although the term intersectional feminism is more recent, the meaning has been promoted by women of Color from across the globe since at least the 1800s (P. H. Collins & Bilge, 2016; Roberts & Connell, 2016). In 1988, African American feminist scholar D. K. King published her classic article, “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness,” to address African American women’s multiple jeopardies (marginalizations) in terms of race, gender, and typically class, but also how African American women become invisible under “African American” when “male” is assumed, and under “women” when “white” is assumed. In 1990 African American legal scholar A. P. Harris defined multiple consciousness as a “process in which propositions are constantly put forth, challenged, and subverted” (p. 584). This challenge and subversion, according to Harris (1990), is due to the phenomenon of gender essentialism, whereby women’s experiences are “isolated and described independently of race, class, sexual orientation, and other realities of experience” (p. 585). Around the same time, Asian American legal scholar Matsuda (1989) described how law school typically trains in bifurcated thinking, by separating what one believes is relevant from what one’s legal training has taught is relevant. This requires a “shifting” between one’s lived experiences “and the white consciousness required for survival in elite educational institutions” (p. 8). Matsuda closed with this directive:

I cannot pretend that I, as a Japanese American, truly know the pain of, say, my Native American sister. But I can pledge to educate myself so that I do not receive her pain in ignorance. And I can say as an American, I am choosing as my heritage the 200 years of struggle by poor and working people, by Native Americans, by women, by people of color, for dignified lives in this nation. I can claim as my own the Constitution my father fought for at Anzio, the Constitution that I swore to uphold and defend when I was admitted to the bar. It was not written for me, but I can make it my own, using my chosen consciousness as a woman and person of color to give substance to those tantalizing words “equality” and “liberty.” (p. 10) More recently, Lopez and Pasko (2017) describe the invisibility of Latinas in criminology research: Latinx people “have historically been classified as White people” in official U.S. data, and Latinas’ experiences in the CLS are often “blurred with those of Latino boys and men” (p. 196). This book makes visible women and girl victims, women and girl defendants/offenders, and women working in the criminal legal system (CLS), acknowledging that women and girls’ experiences are not identical but are impacted by their race, class, sexual identity, national origin, and other personal and potentially marginalizing and privileging characteristics. Many of these have been longignored/invisible. Although there is significant scholarship and awareness needed in many areas of criminology, fortunately there is increasing research on LGBTQI+, Indigenous (e.g., Morris & Wood, 2010), Latinx individuals (Flores, Camacho, & Santos, 2017; Lopez, 2017; Lopez & Pasko, 2017), and people with disabilities (Scherer & Reyns, 2019). Notably, queer criminology is an essential and growing subfield within criminology (Ball, 2016; Buist & Lenning, 2016; Panfil, 2017; D. Peterson & Panfil, 2014; E. S. Peterson & Skinner, 2019; Wodda & Panfil, 2018; Woods, 2017). A crucial concept in this analysis is the Global South. Global South is a shift from using terms such as Third World, Underdeveloped, or Developing countries to broadly refer to geographic regions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Replacing the prior labels for the Global North (previously referred to as Developed and First World nations)

(p y p ) and Global South “marks a shift from a focus on development or cultural difference toward an emphasis on geopolitical power relations” (Dados & Connell, 2012, p. 12). Significantly, “colonization itself was a gender-structured process, colonial societies were strongly gendered in new ways and postcolonial societies to have produced new configurations of gender relations” (Roberts & Connell, 2016, p. 137). Moreover, racism, nationalism, and “deeply troubling expressions of violent masculinity” are embedded in many criminological theories from the Global North, at the same time that they fail to address the present criminogenic impact from the “violence of coloniality itself” (Carrington & Hogg, 2017, p. 181). In 1998, Indigenous scholar and criminologist L. Ross (1998) wrote that Native American “loss of sovereignty is implicitly tied to Native criminality in complex, historical ways” (p. 2). In sum, there is a presumptuousness when scholars of the Global North, particularly in the United States, where most criminological theories have been developed, assume that their theories should apply world-wide (Belknap, 2016; Carrington & Hogg, 2017; Liu, 2009; Suzuki, Pai, & Islam, 2018). In addition to using Global South/North as terms for the nation inequities described earlier, I will largely use Indigenous and Native American somewhat interchangeably but will not use “Indian” to refer to Indigenous peoples in the United States (unless quoting someone who uses this term). Similarly, “Hispanic” is an offensive identifier to many given “its association with Spain, the nation that oppressed their ancestors in Mexico and Central and South America” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017, p. 69). Thus, consistent with others and the cumbersomeness of using Latina/Latino/Latinas/Latinos, “Latinx” is used to comprise all of these. Some people decry this is being too “PC” (politically correct). I contend it is important not to continue troubling labels that are offensive to the people being labeled, and that people should have the right to identify themselves rather than continue labels started by colonists or other outsiders. This is not perfect (i.e., Latinx); not everyone who is Latinx prefers this term. At the writing of this edition of this book, however, it is arguably the most respectful and accurate term.

WHAT IS FEMINISM?

Feminism and feminists recognize that gender inequalities exist in society and value change that enhances gender equality. African American feminist hooks (1984) defines feminism simply as “the struggle to end sexist oppression” (p. 26). She compares patriarchy to racism and other forms of oppression and points out that for sexism to end, racism and other forms of oppression cannot remain intact. Feminism, therefore, is part of the larger movement to end domination in all of its forms (hooks, 1990). “The aim of feminism is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It [feminism] does not privilege women over men. It has the power to transform in a meaningful way all our lives” (hooks, 1984, p. 26) The need for feminism, then, arises from the desire to create a world without gender and other forms of oppression. Unfortunately, a number of myths have damaged the concept of feminism as a legitimate issue and approach. The media and politicians sometimes exaggerate or manipulate statistics and incidents in order to condemn feminism and keep women in genderspecified roles (e.g., see Faludi, 1991). Daly and Chesney-Lind (1988) identify three myths about feminism: (1) Feminism lacks objectivity, (2) feminist analysis narrowly focuses on women, and (3) there is only one feminist perspective. Regarding charges that feminism lacks objectivity, Daly and Chesney-Lind point out that men and nonfeminists are no more objective about gender issues than are women and feminists. The problem is that too often “men’s experiences are taken as the norm and are generalized to the population” (p. 500). With regard to the criticism that feminism focuses too narrowly on women, in fact, feminist analysis does not ignore men and masculinity; rather, men are included in—but are not always the center of—the analysis. Obviously, it is impossible to study gender without studying different genders, but it is also important to study the roles of masculinity and femininity and how they are framed depending on who is doing them. Feminist criminologists have increasingly included studies of men, sometimes only men (or boys), to examine the role of masculinity to explain phenomena such as offending (Jones, 2018; Panfil, 2017; Presser, 2008). In her book The Chosen Ones: Black Men and the Politics of Redemption, N. Jones (2018), an African American, feminist, criminology scholar, reports on a five-year ethnographic study she conducted of San Francisco’s Fillmore neighborhood. “The Chosen

Ones is written from the perspective of Black men who see the ghosts of the destruction they brought to their neighborhoods as young boys and who now want to make good” (p. 86). Jones identifies the confusing and contradictory messages Black men confront about Black masculinity while trying to both “find a new place in their families and in their neighborhood” and redefine “in word and deed what it means to be a man worthy of a measure of respect that is not solely rooted in physical dominance” (p. 16). Indeed, these men must negotiate this while the criminal legal system (CLS) is “organized around the bodies of Black men” (p. 27). Feminist theory, overall, “is a woman-centered description and explanation of human experience and the social world. It asserts that gender governs every aspect of personal and social life” (Danner, 1991, p. 51). Yet it is important to recognize there are variations of feminisms. “The subject of feminism is by no means static or consensual but rather is a field of arguments, disagreements, transformations, and problematizations that vary over time” (Martinez, 2018, p. 327). For example, there are Marxist, socialist, liberal, radical, postmodernist, intersectional, Black, African American, Chicana, Asian American, Indigenous, Native American, Queer, Spanish, Brazilian, French, second wave, third wave, institutional, para-institutional, and many other feminisms and feminists. Crossley’s 2017 book, Finding Feminism: Millennial Activists and the Unfinished Gender Revolution, is a study of diverse millennial feminist activists (e.g., racial diversity, women, men, queer, trans, etc.) on three U.S. college campuses, identifying and documenting a range of young activist women and men engaged in intersectional feminism, and challenging the enactments of privilege and discrimination in the intersections of gender, race, class, sexuality, and other inequalities. Thus, not all feminists think alike. On the other hand, there is a common thread among feminists: Gender inequality and discrimination exist, are disproportionately experienced by and perpetrated against girls and women, and need to be challenged. Increasingly, feminists have embraced hooks’s (1984) perspective that fighting sexism cannot be achieved without also fighting racism, classism, homophobia, and so on. Despite the differences between some of the “feminisms,” they all push to rethink and improve women’s, girls’, and gender-nonconforming individuals’ lives. Feminist changes may help men and boys, too; for example,

feminism has been key in improving fathers’ roles in nurturing their children (Berton, Bureau, & Rist, 2017). Criminology has often included the field of deviance whereby crime is deviant, but so are other instances of marginalized people acting and being out of culturally and often legally prescribed spaces. Wodda and Panfil (2018) document sex-negativity, “a perspective that treats any form of sexuality aside from heterosexual marital sex as deviant and abnormal,” as a method practiced by both early CLS practitioners and criminologists preoccupied with women and girls’ sexuality” (p. 583). Thus, Wodda and Panfil advocate for moving toward sex-positive feminist criminology, which includes “positive notions of [sexual] desire, affirmative (or ‘yes means yes’) [sexual] consent, and concern for the well-being of self and others” (p. 589) and “recognizes the uniqueness of individual sexuality” (p. 590). Sex-positive feminist criminology is “more than merely endorsing the right to engage in (or not engage in) sexual behaviors. The kind of sex-positivity we support is structural—a way to think about sexuality, wanting, and desire in a way that encompasses a wealth of intersectional human experience” (p. 600). An important and contested development in feminisms has been concern about the incongruency of advocating for more statesanctioned punishment of perpetrators of gender-based abuses (GBAs, such as rape and intimate partner abuse) while many feminists, and particularly feminists of Color, have provided significant and realistic concerns about the sexist, racist, classist, and counterproductive police, court, and prison systems. Following World War II, and mostly in the 1960s through the 1990s, the liberal law-and-order era in the United States started whereby liberal social policies were “balanced” by implementing conservative CLS policies that resulted in more police, prisons, incarceration, and no one was more criminalized and targeted than people of Color, primarily African Americans (Bumiller, 2008; Mack & McCann, 2018; Murakawa, 2014; Thuma, 2014). Significantly, many scholars stress that liberal Democrats, such as President Bill Clinton, were central to the carceral and racist state (e.g., Middlemass, 2017; Murakawa, 2014; Stevenson, 2015). The resulting “racialized and gendered policies … not only fail to respond to the needs of those harmed, but also target and disenfranchise communities of color” (Mack & McCann, 2018, p. 331). To this end, in 2000, a number of well-known feminist criminologists of Color, including Angela Y. Davis and Beth Richie, formed INCITE!, a grassroots organization specifically

designed to address these inconsistencies between advocating for victims of GBAs at the same time as addressing the violence perpetrated against people and communities of Color in and by the criminal legal system (see http://www.incite-national.org/page/aboutincite). Bumiller’s (2008) powerful book In an Abusive State convincingly documents how feminist campaigns against sexual violence “evolved in alliance with the state,” placing “cultural anxieties associated with sexual terror … on the public agenda, polarized gender- and racebased interests and fueled notions” (p. xv). Whittier (2016) identifies carceral feminism as “feminist activism aimed at increasing state enforcement against violence against women” (p. 792). Stated alternatively, carceral feminists ultimately favor the more official CLS “justice” responses to social justice responses; the latter are aimed at addressing structural problems that intersect with gender inequality, such as poverty and racism. Whittier stresses that it is unlikely anyone identifies as a carceral feminist, as “carceral feminism is a term of critique meant to point out the dangers of relying on the state’s punitive power to advance women’s liberation” (p. 792). Perhaps nowhere has carceral feminism played a larger role than in responses to sex trafficking, as carceral feminism is most heightened in cases of gender, sexuality, and the law (Bernstein, 2010, 2012), which will be addressed later in this book. Goodmark’s (2018) book Decriminalizing Domestic Violence provides a compelling analysis for how domestic violence laws are harmful not only to intimate partner abuse offenders but also to the victims, arguing that responses and policies be developed more through viewing this as a human rights, public health, community, and economic concern rather than a CLS concern. Collectively, in contrast to what has been identified as carceral feminism is abolitionist feminism or anti-carceral feminism, an approach initiated by INCITE!, which is increasing in support and referenced repeatedly in this book.

WOMEN AND GIRLS’ INVISIBILITY The title of this book was chosen to reflect the strong theme of invisibility in the three major areas covered in the book: (1) women and girls as offenders, (2) women and girls as victims, and (3) women professionals working in the CLS. Before the 1980s, the

research on women, girls, and crime was scant, practically invisible. It was as if their victimizations, offending, and existence were unimportant or meaningless. With the second wave of the U.S. women’s/feminist movement (the 1960s and 1970s), more women hoping to study what is now referred to as feminist criminology, were accepted into law school, and criminology, psychology, social work, and sociology advanced degree programs, resulting in feminist criminology growing at increasing rates. The first edition of this book was published in 1996, when there was far less research published on women, girls, and crime, and most of it was in the United States and England. Fortunately, this research has significantly expanded not only in the United States and England, but around the world. However, this makes it much more difficult to adequately include all this research, so the book’s focus is on the United States. This book is dedicated to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (#MMIWG). Later in this book we will come back to MMIWG, but it is necessary to identify colonization and resistance to it as very much related to feminist criminology, just as slavery is. The same could be said about the United States that is stated in this quote from Canada’s 2019 MMIWG Report: In the 16th century, “explorers” commissioned by European states arrived in what is now Canada to claim newly “discovered” lands for their benefactors, with the purpose of drawing out its resources for their funders in Europe. They were looking for resources—loot—and hoped to find them in the Americas. While the term “explorer” may suggest a kind of harmless searching or wandering, these voyages were anything but that. Instead, they set the stage for a fullscale assault on Indigenous Nations and communities that has lasted nearly 500 years. (National Inquiry into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, p. 234) Historically, women and girls were left out of victimization and offending studies or, if included, were typically done so in sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, and other stereotypic ways. A study of U.S. and British criminology publications from 1895 to 1997 found “a glaring and persistent deficiency” in the representation of women and girls in criminology studies, which was attributed at least in part

g gy p to the underrepresentation of women criminologists (Hughes, 2005, p. 21). Similarly, historical accounts of criminology often ignored women criminologists’ contributions to the field (Laub & Smith, 1995). On a more positive note, significant pro-feminist changes have occurred: Criminology scholarship and university curricula more often include women and girls, and academia is producing more feminist and queer scholars and publishing outlets (such as journals). Moreover, intersectional feminist criminology is more routinely expected in publications. The growth of feminist and intersectional scholarship is evident in every new edition of The Invisible Woman, whereby there is far more research to review on women, girls, and LGBTQI+ as offenders and victims, and within the context of race, class, sexuality, and so on. Unfortunately, a 2015 study found that although women’s representation as authors in criminology journals indicates increases over time, they are still very underrepresented in six mainstream (compared to the two genderspecialized) criminology journals (Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015). Similarly, a study of pictures in “Intro to Criminal Justice” textbooks found there were three times as many depictions of men as women per chapter (Love & Park, 2013). When women did appear, they were most likely victims or peripheral people. Men were five times more often than women to be portrayed as any category of CLS professionals (i.e., police officers, judges and lawyers, and guards) and seven times more than women as police officers (which, we will find in Section III of this book, is the least gender diverse of CLS jobs).

Women and Girls as Offenders Most criminology theories are concerned with what “causes” crime and thus focus on factors related to offending, primarily male juvenile offending. Until the late 1970s, it was highly unusual for these studies to include girls or women in their samples. Although gender is the strongest factor indicating a person’s likelihood to break the law, these (almost exclusively male) researchers rarely thought it necessary to include women or girls in their samples. The irony is that “sex, the most powerful variable regarding crime has been virtually ignored” (Leonard, 1982, p. xi). Criminology theories were constructed “by men, about men” and explain male behavior rather than human behavior (p. xi). Significantly, studying why women and

girls offend less frequently than men and boys “could arguably provide clues for dealing with men’s criminality” and provide more deterrence to offending (A. Morris, 1987, p. 2). When the researchers included girls in their samples prior to the 1980s (and too often since then), it was typically to see how girls fit into boys’ equations. That is, rather than include in the study a means of assessing how girls’ lives might be different from boys’ lives, girls’ delinquency has typically been viewed as peripheral and unnecessary to understanding juvenile offending and processing. It is not a coincidence that the criminal behavior of women and girls (regardless of race) (Leonard, 1982; A. Morris, 1987) and people of Color (regardless of gender) (A. Morris, 1987; Ross, 1998; Wotherspoon & Hansen, 2019) has historically (and, to some extent, currently) been attributed to biological causes, whereas white boys and men’s crimes are more frequently attributed to economic and social factors such as social class, access to opportunities to learn crime, and area of residence in a city. Another aspect of the invisibility of female offenders is the “correctional” institutions provided for women and girls. The jails, prisons, and delinquent institutions for women and girls, both historically and presently, vary drastically from those for boys and men, mostly to the disadvantage of girls and women. Moreover, historically, treatment and punishment issues/opportunities differ vastly for women based on race (Butler, 1997; C. F. Collins, 1997; P. H. Collins, 1990; Freedman, 1981; Rafter, 1985; Young, 1994). The excuse for the lack of research on institutions housing women and girl offenders, as well as the lack of training, vocational, educational, and counseling programs available to incarcerated women and girls, is that women and girls make up a small percentage of offenders. This lack of interest in and opportunities for women and girls are particularly disturbing given that since the 1970s, their incarceration rate grew much faster than men’s (Hammett & Drachman-Jones, 2006; Immarigeon & Chesney-Lind, 1992; Kline, 1993; Lo, 2004; Mumola & Beck, 1997; Sokoloff, 2005).

Women and Girls as Victims Section III of this book focuses on the victimization of women and girls. The most common crimes committed against women and girls —sexual abuse (including rape), intimate partner abuse (domestic

violence), and stalking—are not only some of the most invisible and underreported crimes, but they are also some of the most frequent, abusive, fear-inducing, humiliating, and often, violent and dangerous, crimes. Research on violence against women and girls, also known as gender-based abuse, has also increased exponentially in recent years. This is in part due to the increased number of women and feminists in academia and has been greatly aided by the implementation of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, the first U.S. federal legislation addressing gender-based abuse (Murshid & Bowen, 2018). VAWA was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, and the Office on Violence Against Women was established in 1995 to implement this act, and it was reauthorized in 2000, 2005, and 2013 (Stuart, 2005; Valente, Hart, Zeya, & Malefyt, 2001; Whittier, 2016). Due to VAWA, research on violence against women (e.g., domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking) has been funded, and programs in a variety of agencies (e.g., police, courts, Native American communities) regarding violence against women have been implemented and funded at unprecedented rates (Stuart, 2005). VAWA 2000 included a substantial expansion of protections for immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and was passed with the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Murshid & Bowen, 2018). The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA was passed only after being critically threatened by a partisan standstill primarily due to Republicans’ reluctance to expand the program to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans victims and undocumented immigrants and reticence to increase authority to American Indian tribes to address intimate partner abuse in their communities (Deer, 2018; Whittier 2016). The VAWA 2013 debates were fraught with both sexist and racist rhetoric, framing “the racialized ‘criminal alien’ sexually threatening to the ‘vulnerable’ woman” (Mayers, 2019, p. 61). Immigrants were dichotomized into “deserving” and “undeserving” of citizenship, in efforts to enhance border control with Mexico (Mayers, 2019, p. 61). The VAWA reauthorization needed in 2018 expired due to the U.S. federal government shutdown under President Trump (December 2018–January 2019). In April 2019 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a VAWA Reauthorization bill, including trans victims and banning convicted domestic violence abusers from

purchasing guns, but at the date of writing this, it has not been considered by the U.S. Senate.

Women as Professionals in the Criminal Legal System The final major area covered in this book, Section IV, is women’s employment in the CLS. The three major types of employment opportunities in this system are work in prisons and jails, policing/law enforcement, and the courts (i.e., lawyers and judges). Section IV of this book examines historical and current issues for women employed as correctional officers (guards), police, and lawyers and judges. In all of these professions, women have faced considerable resistance to entering these jobs and receiving promotions. Women’s disadvantage in the workplace is a “more enduring feminist concern,” and this is disproportionately so in CLS professions given the sexist “assumptions about gender norms for women” (Rabe-Hemp & Miller, 2018, p. 231). This resistance was and is based primarily on the attitude that women are unsuitable for these jobs because working with male offenders requires “manly”/hyper-masculine men. “Before the 1970s, almost all criminal justice employees in the world were men” (Rabe-Hemp & Miller, 2018, p. 231). Title VII, a 1972 amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, proved crucial for women’s professional entrance into jobs in the criminal legal system. Unfortunately, women’s advancement in both numbers and rank has been slow. Despite current efforts by law schools and police departments to hire more women, the numbers of women in these occupations are still quite low, as are the number of women working in men’s penal institutions (the majority of incarceration facilities) and women becoming partners in private law firms. As reported later in this book, even today some women working in these fields (policing, prisons/jails, legal firms, and courts) still face some minor and major resistance, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, obstacles, and hostility from some male administrators, coworkers, and the public (Helfgott, Gunnison, Murtagh, & Navejar, 2018).

Blurring of Boundaries of Women’s Experiences in Crime

In addition to acknowledging the invisibility of women offenders, women victims, and women working in the criminal legal system, it is important to recognize the overlapping of these categories in many women’s experiences. Given the extraordinarily high rates of genderbased abuse (see Chapters 7 through 9), it would be difficult to have women working in the criminal legal system who had not been victimized by GBA. Similarly, the offending chapters (Chapters 2 through 6), including some criminology theories (e.g., pathways and cycle of violence theories) address the well-documented relationship between gender-based abuse and other victimizations and offending behaviors. Many of these accounts suggest that the likelihood that prior victimization (especially gender-based abuse victimization) and offending (especially sex work/prostitution, running away, and drug offenses) are significantly related. For example, women and girls escaping abusive homes often have few legal avenues and engage in crimes such as sex work, selling drugs, and property crimes, in order to survive. As discussed earlier, women victims, offenders, and professionals in the CLS have historically remained invisible. Because of the shame associated with sexual abuse and abuse by a partner, these crimes are not routinely reported to the criminal legal system, research interviewers, or even family members and health care officials. Similarly, offending women have remained invisible because, until recently, they made up less than 5% of the prison population. Although no actual count exists, U.S. prisons have housed, and continue to house, countless women who killed their very abusive mates as a last resort (e.g., Browne, 1987; Richie, 1996). Finally, roles for women professionals in the criminal legal system were largely nonexistent until the 1970s. The goal of this book is to make issues surrounding women and crime more visible, to trace the changes in society and the criminal legal system that have occurred, and to propose changes that still need to occur. But first, to understand these issues, it is important to have an understanding of feminism and the difference between sex and gender.

SEX VERSUS GENDER Differences between men/boys and women/girls have been divided into two categories: sex differences and gender differences. Sex differences are biological differences, including differences in

reproductive organs, body size, muscle development, and hormones. Even biologically it is not always clear what sex someone is; 1 in 2,000 births are intersex individuals, and the pattern has been to have the doctor decide the sex at birth in these “questionable” cases (Kessler, 1990). Gender differences are those that are ascribed by society and that relate to expected social roles. Examples of gender differences include clothing, wages, child-care responsibilities, and professions. Not only are most differences between males and females gender (as compared to sex) differences, but gender-based differences are rooted largely in inequality (MacKinnon, 1990). Because society creates these inequalities, society must also be the solution to restructuring the images and opportunities of women and men (and girls and boys) to achieve equality. Sex and gender differences are further complicated by the recognition that sex is not a female–male binary and that people are born with unclear biological sex markers, including “ambiguous” genitalia (not clearly distinguishable whether the body part is a penis or a clitoris) and ranges of hormones and chromosomes (Sanz, 2017). Sanz (2017) points to Global North scientists’ devotion to a sex binary since the 18th century and their commitment to disavowing the extensive biological distributions among the “sex” continuum. The acceptance of sex as nonbinary makes the social construction of gender as peculiar as it should be considered. Forbes’s (2014) definition of trans (an abbreviation of the word transgender) is simply people who “live as the gender that is not associated with their birth sex” (p. 388). Thus, a proposed way of moving feminist criminology forward is to trans framework, that is, to move beyond a gender binary (male–female binary), to help address the multitude of ways that gender privileges and oppresses (Musto, 2019, p. 50). Court cases on sex discrimination have historically confused sex and gender differences, often ruling to the disadvantage of women on the basis that cultural/societal (or gender) differences are “immutable” (Rhode, 1989, p. 3). That is, legal discourse has historically failed to distinguish sex differences from gender differences, viewing both as inherent and not recognizing the role society plays in perpetuating gender inequalities. Inherent in this distinction between sex and gender are the concepts of sexism and patriarchy. Sexism refers to oppressive attitudes and behaviors directed at any gender; that is, sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. In practice,

the discrimination, prejudice, and negative attitudes and behaviors based on sex and gender are directed primarily at women (e.g., women are not as “good” as men, women exist for the sexual pleasure of men, women are defined by their beauty, etc.). Sexism can be further divided as it is in Chapter 6, distinguishing between benign and benevolent sexism, and include structural sexism, described in Chapter 7. Homan (2019) defines structural sexism as “systematic gender inequality in power and resources” and distinguishes between its enactment at the state (macro), marital dyad (meso), and individual (micro) levels (p. 487). Although Homan applies structural sexism to health inequality, it applies also to the criminal legal system and justice inequality. Marital status as a gendered/sexist phenomenon is raised frequently in this book, as is macro structural inequality in terms of how laws, policies, police, courts, prisons/jails/youth detention institutions perpetuate gender inequality for women/girls as victims, offenders, and workers in the criminal legal system. Homan stresses that structural sexism must be studied “across a variety of status characteristics, including race, education, marital status, sexual orientation, and parental status” (p. 509). Patriarchy, on the other hand, refers to a social, legal, and political climate that values male dominance and hierarchy. Central to the patriarchal ideology is the belief that women’s nature is biologically, not culturally, determined (Edwards, 1987) and that laws are from men’s standpoint, consistent with men’s experiences (MacKinnon, 1989). What feminists identify as (socialized/constructed) gender differences (e.g., the ability to nurture children), therefore, are often defined as sex differences by the patriarchy. Patriarchy and its privileges, then, remain as part of the defining quality of the culture and thus of criminology and the criminal legal system. Starting in the 1970s, some feminists have advocated for “feminist or woman’s law” in order to “describe, explain and understand women’s legal position, especially for the purpose of improving women’s position in the law and society” (Dahl, 1986, p. 240). Jurisprudence is the philosophy or science of law. Feminist legal scholars developed feminist jurisprudence to understand the law “as an institution of male dominance” (Haney, 2000, p. 644). Yet feminist legal scholar Smart (2002) questions whether even feminist jurisprudence can “decenter” the legal system when patriarchy is so ingrained in it. In sum, understanding the distinction between sex and gender informs us that most differences between men and women and boys

and girls are societally based (gender), not biologically determined (sex). Although this is encouraging in that we are more likely to be able to change society than we are to alter biology (and the ethics of biological changes are daunting), this book examines how gender differences are strongly entrenched in tradition and have negatively affected the lives of women and girls, including in the criminal legal system. Furthermore, sex differences, such as the ability to become pregnant, have also worked to women’s disadvantage in employment and many law cases. Importantly, then, gender is a social (not biological) construct, but in some sense so, too, is “sex” when it has historically, and often currently, been decided by doctors whether intersex newborns are “boys” or “girls” when they do not clearly fit into one or the other of the female-or-male gender/sex binary. In trying to view gender as beyond a binary, I use the terms female and male reluctantly in this book given the biologically heavy associations with those words. But it is also very cumbersome to use phrases such as “girls and women” and “boys and men” so I still sometimes use female and male, if reluctantly, also recognizing that sex and gender are nonbinary. It is also necessary to stress that similar to sex, race, too, is socially constructed. A large body of research documents the phenomenon that biological racial categories do not exist (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Haney-López, 2006; Mendez & Spriggs, 2008; Wing, 2003; Zuberi, 2001). This is not to deny the very real practices and experiences of sexism and racism, but rather to understand that sex and race are socially constructed, and the social construction has been used to deny rights to Indigenous, African American, Latinx, and Asian American people (Hernández, 2017).

WHAT ARE FEMINIST METHODS? It is useful to recognize that not only does feminist theory distinguish itself from many theories (other than Marxist and radical theories) in its efforts to be applied and result in societal and political changes (praxis) but also that in many senses, feminist theory purports a variety of means of collecting data, particularly in terms of hearing women and girls’ voices. For example, Maher (1997) writes in her book on women crack users that she was partially motivated to conduct her research because of the ways these women were presented as “monsters” in the media: “I want to present the

accounts of a group of women we hear much about but little from” (p. x). Additionally, it is important to address the idea that feminist theory and methods are not designed to understand women exclusively. Notably, to fully address male offending, using feminist theory and applications of masculinity can help explain males’ likelihood of offending. Instead, historically criminology researchers designed theories to explain boys and men’s criminality and then, sometimes, tried to “fit” them to girls and women (also known as “the addwomen-and-stir approach” and “the generalizability problem”) (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988; Naffine, 1996). The maleness of crimes is true of the United States of America, of Britain, of Australia and indeed of all Western countries. Men are the vast majority of violent and nonviolent offenders…. In view of this remarkable sex bias in crime, it is surprising that gender has not become the central preoccupation of the criminologist, rather than an afterthought. Surely it would be natural to ask the “man question”: what is it about men that makes them offend and what is it about women that makes them law-abiding? (Maher, 1997, p. 6) The focus on method in criminology has been “empirical criminology,” or rather, how can we scientifically understand such important criminological and criminal processing questions as “Why do (some) people commit crimes?” “What policies best deter offenders from future offending?” “How are decisions made by the police, prosecutors, judges, parole review boards, and others?” “How frequently do different types of crimes occur?” “What increases people’s chances of victimization?” and “How can victims of crimes best recover?” We can approach answers to these research questions empirically (scientifically) through many methods. Although more research focuses on or includes women, an ongoing problem is when gender/sex is simply used as a control variable in statistical models. It is usually more appropriate to at least conduct separate models for males and females to determine if the variables are operating the same in significance, power, and direction. Feminist methods might mean composing more sensitive questions to quantify a rate or determining how best to construct interview, survey, and focus group items about the research questions that

y g p q need to be asked. Concerning the issue of more sensitive questions, for example, it was common before the 1980s to measure rape occurrence as the number of rapes reported to the police. Feminist researchers later began asking women directly, knowing that many rape victims do not report their victimizations to the police. Next, it became apparent that asking women whether they have been raped “lost” a number of rapes, given that many raped women and girls (and we now know, raped men and boys) do not define their experiences as “fitting” the legal definition of rape. Now it is known that the best method to capture rape rates is to ask study participants whether they have been “forced or coerced to have sex” rather than simply to ask, “Have you been raped?” The former wording captures a far more accurate measure of rape. Finally, feminist research methods, perhaps more than any other method, have attempted to focus on the relationship between the researcher and those studied: Insofar as women’s perspectives and experiences are subordinated in scientific inquiries and the larger culture, feminist researchers seek to eliminate hierarchies of knowledge construction. We are sensitive to our place in such hierarchies, so we disclose the multiple, historically specific positions we hold in relation to both study questions and participants. (Presser, 2005, p. 2067) Presser’s (2005) study of males convicted of violent crimes (including rape) is a prime example of reflexivity, where she consistently addresses the way power relations between the interviewees and her (the interviewer) became part of the data. For example, the ways some of these men mildly coerced and threatened her during data collection not only influenced the method but also the findings. Feminist standpoint theory is a starting point for many feminist studies and stresses that “the way we do research is framed by our standpoint” and our perception of “knowledge is always situated, as our materially grounded and socio-culturally formed standpoint within a particular society influences what we can know about our world” (Dengler & Seebacher, 2019, p. 247). Dengler and Seebacher (2019), in their work on decolonial and socioecological transformations, warn that Global North feminist researchers need to “overcome our situatedness and partiality by

p y y including heterogeneous voices and perspectives from other lived realities both in the Global South and the Global North alike” (p. 247). This caution can be expanded to those of us who have never been incarcerated or even arrested but who are conducting research on incarcerated adults and children. Criminological feminist research methodology, then, involves many choices, including the research topics, means of collecting and interpreting data, understanding the researcher’s relationship with the participants, reflexivity (the critical examination of the research process itself), and a commitment to policy and action. We need to ensure we identify “strategies for social change and ending domination in all its forms” (Flavin, 2001, p. 281) and an obligation to use our findings to make these changes … not solely publish our findings (Belknap, 2015; Flavin, 2001).

THE EFFECT OF SOCIETAL IMAGES ON WOMEN REGARDING CRIME It is difficult to understand how women victims, offenders, and professionals are viewed and treated in the CLS without first understanding the images of women in society. Feminist research includes documenting that women have been dichotomized into either “Madonnas” or “whores” (Feinman, 1986; McDermott & Blackstone, 2001, p. 89). These sexuality-driven images of women and girls are both historic and current in the societal and formal/system processing of women and girls as offenders, particularly regarding their sexuality (Chesney-Lind & Merlo, 2015; McDermott & Blackstone, 2001). In her paradigm-shifting book, Black Feminist Thought, P. H. Collins (1990) identified four “interlocking” sexist, racist, classist controlling images of Black women in the United States: mammies, matriarchs, Jezebels, and welfare mothers. Mammies are a controlling image caricatured from slavery but of the postslavery, financially exploited Black women hired to do the emotional and household labor in white homes that would otherwise be expected of white wives and mothers. This is at the expense of the Black women’s own families given their time in white homes. Matriarchs are the controlling image that condemns Black women for failing their own children (often while they were financially exploited doing the emotional and domestic labor in white homes) with a corresponding devastation on society from these

women’s supposedly errant and irresponsible Black children (then adults) (pp. 74–75). “Such a view diverts attention from the political and economic inequality affecting Black mothers and children and suggests that anyone can rise from poverty if he or she only received good values at home” (p. 74). Third, Jezebels are Collins’s controlling image of Black women as sexually aggressive or “whores,” an image also originating in slavery and justifying the sexual exploitation and assault (e.g., wet nurses and rape) of Black women and girls (p. 77). Finally, welfare mothers are Collins’s controlling image related to the “breeder” image of slavery combined with Black women’s increasing dependency on the “welfare state” since World War II. Clearly, these images portray the lasting impacts of slavery while not only denying the legacies of slavery and racism interlocking with sexism and classism, but actually fostering the continued stereotyping and oppression of Black womanhood. Young (1986) challenges the Madonna/whore typology to the extent that it may apply only to white women. She claims that whereas the Madonna/whore dichotomy implies a good girl/bad girl dichotomy, categories for women of Color include no “good girl” categories. Instead, she views women of Color as falling into four categories, all of which are negative. The amazon is seen as inherently violent and capable of protecting herself; the sinister sapphire is vindictive, provocative, and not credible; the mammy is viewed as stupid, passive, and bothersome; and the seductress is sexually driven and noncredible as a victim or professional (Young, 1986). These are like P. H. Collins’s (1990) “controlling images” of Black womanhood. DeFour (1990) discusses the additional ramifications for women and girls of Color regarding sexual harassment. She argues that these women may be more at risk of sexual harassment victimization yet receive the least serious responses due to societal portrayals of them as “very sexual” and “desiring sexual attention” more than their white sisters. DeFour points to cultural myths portraying Latinas as “hot-blooded,” Asian women as “exotic sexpots,” and Native American women as “devoted to male elders” (p. 49). Thus, not only are women and girls treated differently than men and boys for identical sexual behaviors, but among women there is often discrimination in expectations due to damaging myths. The widely known 1990 movie Pretty Woman received numerous accolades as a romantic comedy. The movie portrayed a sex worker who married one of her patrons. One could argue that the effect of this “feel-good” movie on girls would be, “Wow! Sex work/prostitution

results in finding handsome, rich, doting, wonderful husbands!”— hardly the message mainstream U.S. culture supports. The movie Thelma and Louise released shortly thereafter, in 1991, depicted two women taking a road trip during which one, Louise, shoots and kills a man trying to rape the other, Thelma, in a parking lot outside of a bar. Louise fears (it would seem legitimately, given information provided later in this book) that she is going to receive serious prison time for killing the man attempting rape. This results in the two women trying to evade the police. Despite six Oscar nominations and one win for Thelma and Louise (and one Oscar nomination and no wins for Pretty Woman), a significant number of people, including journalists, portrayed Thelma and Louise as a “bad” message for girls. Notably, the reviews for Pretty Woman never came to that conclusion. One could argue that the takeaway message is “sex work is fun and rewarding and helps women find wealthy, attractive, and doting husbands, but don’t shoot a man trying to rape your friend.” A final example of popular images of criminals that are gendered and raced is the way school shootings are portrayed in the media. The media have ignored the strong gender and race patterns of school shootings: The perpetrators are primarily white boys, and the targets have disproportionately been girls (Danner & Carmody, 2001; Farr, 2018; Moore, 2003; Newman, 2004; Steinem, 1999). Farr’s (2018) careful and comprehensive analysis of 29 kindergarten through 12th grade U.S. rampage1 school shootings (31 shooters) between 1995 and 2015 found all the shooters were boys, 81% were white (13% were full or part Native American and 6% were Latino), and 97% (all but one) identified as heterosexual. Three-fourths of the shootings were in high schools, and 93% were in suburban or rural schools. Farr refers to the pressure of masculinity status for adolescent boys —to be cool, tough, straight (heterosexual), and repudiate femininity. Farr found all school shooters were made aware of failures at masculinity by classmates, through such means as “emasculating bullying, rejection by girlfriends, and marginalization in general” (p. 93). Certainly, it is ideal that girls reject unwanted flirtation and romances, so this is not to blame girls who have broken up with or have never had any interest in being with boys who later became shooters. The 2018 Parkland, Florida, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting occurred after Farr’s (2018) data collection, but one of the

victims, Shana Fisher, had been increasingly aggressively pursued by the shooter (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-shooter20180519-story.html). Farr found many school shooters reported rejection by a girlfriend or potential girlfriend, and many “described their experiences of sexualized physical victimization by male peers, such as being tea-bagged (having another boy shove his genitals in their face), having another or other boys urinate on them, having their head pushed into the toilet)” (p. 82). In addition to their masculinity status failings, “all of the shooters had at least one of three long-standing personal troubles: psychiatric disorder, family dysfunction, or situational volatility” (p. 93). Thus, rampage school shootings are impacted by cultural demands about adolescent boys’ masculinity status but also clearly intersect with personal troubles. Notably, one recommendation that Farr concludes with is requiring schools to address “adolescent masculinity issues in their curriculum” (p. 94). 1Farr’s

(2018) definition of a rampage school shooting is one where the intent was to kill multiple people, at least one of whom was a student, or firing into a group of people that included at least one student.

SUMMARY Given the history of criminology as “one of the most thoroughly masculinized of all social science fields … the phrase ‘feminist criminology’ may well seem something of an oxymoron” (Britton, 2000, p. 58). Feminist criminology has been growing since the 1970s and is having an increasingly strong impact on this male-dominated field: “Feminist criminologists have been at the forefront in pointing out that when women and other marginalized groups are ignored, devalued, or misrepresented, society in general and the understanding of crime and justice in particular suffer as a result” (Flavin, 2001, p. 271). Relatedly, in 2006 H. Potter developed Black feminist criminology through her research on how “Black women experience and respond to intimate partner abuse and how the criminal legal system responds to battered Black women” (p. 106). This chapter presented the numerous ways that women and girls’ experiences as victims, offenders, and professionals in the criminal legal system (CLS) have been made invisible. Concepts such as

sex, gender, feminism, patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and carceral feminism were explored. In addition to including race and class along with gender in intersectional feminist criminology, sexuality is vital, as is viewing gender past a male–female binary phenomenon. This chapter discussed the importance of including LGBTQI+ individuals in assessing gender, feminism, and crime, and not assuming a monolithic experience for women, girls, and LGBTQI+ individuals, and the reasons why race, class, sexual and gender, and other variables must be considered when discussing and researching women and girls’ experiences and behaviors. Thus, in addition to Musto’s (2019) recommendation to trans gender in order to successfully transform feminist theory, research, and practice, she and many others (as cited in this chapter) stress the need to resist carceral feminism. A. P. Harris (2011) summarizes much of what this chapter attempted to introduce, that is, how an intersectional analysis is necessary and the past and current challenge of revamping our criminal legal system where justice is rarely achieved for victims or offenders: Although destructive masculinity and its prominence in the criminal justice system have seemingly not changed much in the past decade, at least two new developments have taken place. First, scholars and activists committed to ending domestic violence and violence against sexual minorities have become increasingly disenchanted with the criminal justice system, and increasingly aware of its insidious role in the decimation of poor black and brown communities. Meanwhile, racial justice scholars have become increasingly aware of the toll that destructive masculinity takes on those communities. (p. 17)

PART II WOMEN AND GIRLS’ OFFENDING Chapter 2 Theories Part I: Positivist, Evolutionary, Strain, Differential Association, Social Control, and Women’s Emancipation Theories Chapter 3 Theories Part II: Critical, Labeling, Cycle of Violence, Life Course, Pathways, and Masculinity Theories Chapter 4 Accounting for Gender–Crime Patterns Chapter 5 The Context of Women and Girls’ Offending for Specific Crimes Chapter 6 Processing Women and Girls in the Criminal Legal System Chapter 7 Incarcerating, Punishing, and “Treating” Offending Women and Girls

2 THEORIES PART I: POSITIVIST, EVOLUTIONARY, STRAIN, DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION, SOCIAL CONTROL, AND WOMEN’S EMANCIPATION THEORIES The academic field of criminology is implicitly colonizing … a discipline built upon penal tourism, applying a tour-bus approach to ideas on crime, casually sightseeing and piecing together snapshots of medical anthropology, biology, sociology, psychology, and patriarchal conceptions of racial gender to produce an incomplete yet seemingly cohesive conception of “the criminal.” —Saleh-Hanna (2017, pp. 698, 691)

Most criminological theories were constructed by men and about why (some) men and boys break the law (Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016; Leonard, 1982; Messerschmidt, 1993; Naffine, 1996). Criminology is not unique among academic disciplines in its historical exclusion of women and girls from most research questions (Fausto-Sterling, 1985; Allison Morris, 1987; Smart, 1976; Spender, 1981), but it is ironic given that sex/gender is one of the best predictors of criminality across time (Britton, 2000, p. 60) and age (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). There are two important implications of focusing solely on men and boys’ experiences: (1) The theories and findings are really theories and findings about boys and men’s crime, and (2) we must question the validity of any “general” theory if it does not also apply to girls/women (Allison Morris, 1987, p. 2). Rasche (1975) offered three explanations for the historical neglect of women’s offending: (1) Women make up a small percentage of prisoners (approximately 7%, currently); (2) prison authorities are more likely to oppose research on women (than on men) prisoners;

and (3) women are deemed insignificant compared to the more “deserving” offenders: men. Smart (1976) reported that when women offenders were acknowledged in criminology research, it was in terms of their deviations from the stereotypical aspects of women’s lives, such as maternal deprivation. Further, women law-breakers historically (and to some degree today) have been viewed as “abnormal” and as “worse” than male law-breakers—not only for breaking the law but also for stepping outside of prescribed gender roles of femininity and passivity. Rasche’s (1975) and Smart’s (1976) charges still prevail to some extent, although there has been a huge increase in research on women prisoners and girl delinquents since 1975, particularly from a feminist perspective. This is due to three reasons. First, since 1980, the beginning of mass incarceration in the U.S., women’s increasing rate of incarceration even outpaced men’s (see Chapter 7 in this book). Second, the feminist movement influenced most scholars to acknowledge the significance of gender in studying crime and proposing theories. Finally, as stated previously, the feminist movement also resulted in far more women and feminist scholars studying crime. It is impossible to discuss all theories that have been applied to offending and victimization, even in two chapters. The chapters are divided starting with some of the more sexist (and racist, classist, and heterosexist) theories, although not all of the theories in this chapter fall into this category, and some have been supported in feminist scholarship. The most sexist theories in this chapter are the positivist, evolutionary, and women’s emancipation theories. The ones that have omitted girls/women underpinnings but have been more carefully applied include strain, differential association, and social control theories.1 Finally, many of the studies reported in this and the following chapter use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data, often referred to as Add Health. These longitudinal data of nationally representative U.S. youths began in 1994 with the Wave I of questionnaires distributed to about 20,000 students in Grades 7 through 12, followed by Wave II in 1996 when almost 15,000 of the same individuals were interviewed, and to date, three more waves involving reinterviews. Wave IV, the most recently available at the time of writing this edition of this book, were when the research subjects were 24 to 32 years old.

1Some

of these were or are called hypotheses instead of theories, but for simplicity, they will almost routinely be referred to as theories in this and the next chapter.

THE ORIGINAL AND POSITIVIST STUDIES The original and positivist studies of female criminality were conducted between the end of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th century. The most prominent researchers included Cesare Lombroso and Guglielmo Ferrero (1895/2004), W. I. Thomas (1923, 1967a, 1967b), Sigmund Freud (1933), and Otto Pollak (1950). These studies were grounded in the belief that biological determinism accounts for female criminality: Whereas men are rational, women are driven by their biological constitutions. Positivist approaches were informed by four main assumptions: (1) Individual characteristics, not society, are responsible for criminal behavior; (2) there is an identifiable biological nature inherent in all women; (3) offending women are “masculine,” which makes them incompetent as women and thus prone to break the law; and (4) the differences between male and female criminality are due to sex, not gender, differences. The classical theorists have been accused of viewing women as turning to crime because of their “perversion of or rebellion against their natural feminine roles” (Klein, 1973, p. 5). In addition to the sexist nature of the classical studies, they also have been classist, racist, and heterosexist, focusing on wealthy, white, straight, married women as the “feminine” standard. These theorists’ works are reviewed in the following sections. The historic legacy of racial criminalization is the U.S. history of equating a specific race with crime and the ongoing discrimination, assuming crime is biologically inherent to every race but white (Delgado, 1994; Hernández, 2017; Russell-Brown, 2009), including Black/African Americans (Hernández, 2017; Muhammad, 2010), Indigenous/Native Americans (Hernández, 2017; Ross, 1998), Latinx Americans (Flores, 2018; Hernández, 2017), and Asian Americans (Hernández, 2017). Notably, racial criminalization is even more heightened for immigrants of Color, regardless of whether they have become citizens (Flores, 2018; Hernández, 2017), and President Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric and practices regarding Latinx immigrants have increased equating Latinx people with crime (Flores, 2018), an association that is highly inaccurate. More specifically, research on

the percentage of Latinx immigrants (and sometimes total number of Latinx residents regardless of citizen status) in an area is unrelated to the crime rate, or is actually a protective factor, with more Latinx residents related to lower crime rates (Light & Miller, 2018; Ramos & Wenger, 2019; Tosh, 2019; Wadsworth, 2010). Similarly, before the 1970s it was customary practice in countries of the Global North (colonizers) to equate what we now refer to as LGBTQI+ with “criminal” and “deviant” (see Woods, 2015). The deviancy and criminal labels were applied to queer people for being gender nonconforming (if they were women/girls who presented as masculine or men/boys who were feminine) and for being sexual deviants for being attracted to their same sex (Woods, 2015). Queer criminology scholar Woods (2015) found that although the 1970s were key in the beginning of LGBTQI+ pride, LGBTQI+ people became invisible, disappearing from mainstream criminology and delinquency theories (p. 133).

Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909) Lombroso, a physician, psychiatrist, and criminal anthropologist who studied incarcerated men and women in 19th-century Italy, is often referred to as the “father” of criminology. In forging a legacy of scientific studies of crime, however, his positivist method set the stage for sexist, racist, heterosexist, and classist approaches to studying the causes of crime and responding to alleged criminals. He published the first edition of Criminal Man in Italian in 1876, and with his son-in-law, Guglielmo Ferrero, Lombroso published Criminal Woman, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman (also referred to in English as Criminal Woman and The Female Offender) in Italian in 1893. Although Criminal Woman was first published in English two years later (in 1895), it was a far briefer version of the original Criminal Woman and retitled The Female Offender (Vyleta, 2006). Moreover, despite a total of five editions of Criminal Man published between 1876 and 1897, it was not published in English until 1911 (also a briefer version of the original but not as significantly cut as Criminal Woman) (Beccalossi, 2008). The late feminist criminologist Nicole Hahn Rafter, with historian Mary Gibson, provided far more detailed and comprehensive English translations of Criminal Woman in 2004 (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1895/2004) and material from all five editions of Criminal Man in 2006 (Lombroso 1876–1897/2006),

which also includes Rafter and Gibson’s commentary on inconsistencies and troubling assumptions and positions. Central to Lombroso’s work over time was his identification of atavism, a “throwback” to an earlier evolutionary human development stage, to explain criminal behavior. “Lombroso firmly maintained that deviants are less highly evolved than ‘normal’ law abiding citizens” (Smart, 1976, p. 31). In Criminal Man, Lombroso first proposed a racial hierarchy with Black Africans at the bottom and white Europeans at the top, identifying people of Color as “savages” with physiological and psychological anomalies (Lombroso, 1876–1897/2006). In the 1984 edition, Lombroso added the category of “born criminal” and added “degeneration to atavism to explain physical and biological malformation….rather than inherited weakness” (Beccalossi, 2008, p. 130). In their search for degeneration and atavism, and assuming criminal behavior was a biological trait, Lombroso and Ferrero measured and documented incarcerated women’s craniums, heights, weights, hair color (and baldness), moles, tattoos, and genitalia. Racism surfaces here in their description of how women of Color “resemble men in their strength, intelligence, and sexual promiscuity” (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1895/2004, p. 18). Another troubling impact of Lombroso and Ferrero’s (1895/2004) work is their association between women and girls’ sexuality and their offending, whereby they viewed women criminals as having been born with “exaggerated eroticism,” which was assumed to make them narcissistic (e.g., about their own sexual desires), more like men, and to make them prostitutes (p. 185). They state, “all those feelings of affection that bind woman to man are born not of sexual impulse, but from instincts of subjection and devotion acquired through adaptation” (p. 76). Oddly, Lombroso and Ferrero concluded that women offenders showed less degeneration (criminality and deviance) than men simply because women had not evolved as much as men, despite claiming that criminals were more atavistic (than noncriminals). That is, despite women’s perceived slower evolution, Lombroso and Ferrero viewed them as less likely than men to be criminal because they were “inferior” to men (Flood, 2007, p. 215). Lombroso and Ferrero (1895/2004) provided two simplistic categories available to women, both of which they considered inferior to men: (1) bad, primitive, and masculine women; and (2) law-abiding, civilized, and feminine women (p. 10). Feinman (1986) identified this as a biologically driven Madonna/whore duality (p. 4).

Madonnas were subservient, loyal, and submissive to their husbands who protected them, but the “whores” received men’s punishment for being evil and causing men pain and destroying them. Woods (2015) documents the legacy of Lombroso’s characterizations of queer women and men as inherently criminal, resulting in gendernonconforming and queer people being “viewed through a lens of deviance” (p. 135). Clearly, regardless of gender, by focusing on the physical and psychological makeup of the individual in determining criminal behavior, Lombroso and Ferrero dismissed both the effects of socialization or social-structural constraints as important determinants of criminal behavior, and the impact of sexist, racist, and/or classist labeling of behavior as criminal. Lombroso and Ferrero’s work had devastating effects on the Italian women’s movement at the time, providing “proof” that women are biologically inferior to men, thus unworthy of equality demands in education, work, and the home (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1895/2004). Notably, the “father” of criminology’s work had longer lasting and more negative impacts on the study of female crime than on male crime (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1895/2004, p. 4).

W. I. Thomas (1863–1947), Sigmund Freud (1856– 1939), and Otto Pollak (1908–1998) Thomas, a U.S. sociologist heavily influenced by Lombroso, wrote the books Sex and Society (1907/1967a) and The Unadjusted Girl (1923/1967b), in which he constructed overly simplistic links between gender, sexuality, class, and crime. Considered more liberal than Lombroso, he defined criminality as “a socially induced pathology rather than a biological abnormality” (Smart, 1976, p. 37). Yet, his seeming obsession with women and girls’ sexuality and denial of sexist access to opportunity indicate he was not so different. For example, like Lombroso and Ferrero, Thomas viewed gender differences in the likelihood to become “politicians, great artists, and intellectual giants” as sex (biological) differences, overlooking the strong societal restrictions of women during that era (Smart, 1976, p. 37). An example of a sex difference Thomas promoted was that love varieties are inherent in nervous systems, and women have more love varieties, resulting in their disproportionate “and intense need to give and feel love,” which lead

them into prostitution where they are “merely looking for the love and tenderness which all women need” (Smart, 1976, p. 39), discounting that most people who engage in sex work do so because access to legal or similarly lucrative work is not available to them. Similarly, Thomas equated girls and women’s sex-outside-of-marriage with delinquency/criminality, whereas this “promiscuity” was never mentioned regarding boys and men’s delinquency and criminality (Heidensohn, 1985, p. 117). He purported that middle-class women are less criminal due to their investment in protecting their chastity, while poor women long for crime in the manner of a new experience, and delinquent girls manipulate males into sex as a means of achieving their own goals. Thomas favored psychological over economic motivations to explain female criminality; the disadvantaged position of women and girls in society held little importance to him in accounting for gender differences in crime. Given that Thomas was writing in an era of mass illness and starvation, the choice to ignore economic deprivation as a potential cause of female crime is rather remarkable (Klein, 1973). His later work, however, acknowledged that women were property of men, and he departed from social Darwinism to examine the complexity of the interaction between society and the individual (Klein 1973). The impact of “promiscuity” being attributed almost solely to girls and women has had a lasting impact on their criminalization, as will be seen later in this book. Founder of psychoanalysis, Austrian Sigmund Freud, centered his explanations of female behavior around the belief that women are anatomically inferior to men—hence, Freud’s infamous “penis envy” approach to explaining female behavior. To Freud, the healthy woman experiences heterosexual sex as a receptor, where sexual pleasure consists of pain, while the sexually healthy man is heterosexual and aggressive and inflicts pain (Klein, 1973). Included in this analysis is a glorification of women’s duties as wives and mothers and, in turn, the view that medical treatment of deviant women involves “helping” them adjust to their “proper” traditional gender roles (Klein, 1973, p. 5). In addition to the obvious sexism, Freud’s theories are fraught with racism, classism, and heterosexism, whereby “only upper- and middle-class women could possibly enjoy lives as sheltered darlings” (Klein, 1973, p. 18). Pollak’s (1950) book The Criminality of Women, published more than a half century after Lombroso and Ferrero’s work, is intricately linked

with their approach. Like Thomas, Pollak believed both biological and sociological factors affect crime. But like Thomas, Lombroso and Ferrero, Pollak portrayed biology and physiology as the fundamental influences on female criminality, repeating many of their assumptions and prejudices (Smart, 1976). Pollak purported that there are no real gender differences in offending, but rather, relative to boys and men, girls and women “mask” (hide) their crimes. In addition, girls and women receive more chivalrous (lenient) treatment in the criminal legal system, making it appear that they are less criminal. His supporting evidence for girls and women’s “deceitful” nature is their ability to hide their menstruation and orgasms and their inactive roles during sexual intercourse. One wonders what happened to girls and women who did not hide that they were menstruating, especially in that era. Additionally, Pollak failed to consider that women’s inactive role during heterosexual sex (where it existed or exists) may be culturally, rather than biologically, determined. Further, women’s training in acquiescence to men, particularly during sex, could account for the fact that women were not hiding orgasms but rather were not experiencing them. Smart compares Pollak’s deceitful woman analysis to Eve’s deceit with Adam (in the Bible), where women are viewed as evil and cunning: “It is Pollak’s contention that women are the masterminds behind criminal organizations; that they are the instigators of crime rather than the perpetrators; that they can and in fact do manipulate men into committing offenses whilst remaining immune from arrest themselves” (Smart, 1976, p. 47).

The Legacies of the Positivist Theorists From the 1960s and 1970s The enduring effects of the positivists can be viewed in the research on female criminality that was published in the 1960s and 1970s. Similar to Pollak, Konopka’s (1966) book, The Adolescent Girl in Conflict, and Vedder and Somerville’s (1970) The Delinquent Girl identify girls as criminal instigators. Konopka views girls’ crime as a result of emotional and sexuality problems, whereas Vedder and Sommerville view it as a result of girls’ inability to adjust to the “normal” female role (Klein, 1973). Most disquieting, Vedder and Sommerville attribute high rates of delinquency among African American girls to “their lack of ‘healthy’ feminine narcissism”—an explanation with racist overtones (Klein, 1973, p. 25). Both books ignore economic and social explanations at the expense of

explaining female criminality through physiology and psychology. Following this logic, they see psychotherapy as the solution to girls’ delinquency and ignore the need to address the potentially criminogenic social and economic constraints in which many delinquent girls were (and still are) enmeshed. Finally, in their book Delinquency in Girls, Cowie, Cowie, and Slater (1968) rely on masculinity, femininity, and chromosomes to explain girls’ criminality. “In this perspective, the female offender is different physiologically and psychologically from the ‘normal’ girl,” in that the delinquent girl is too masculine and is rebelling against her femininity (Klein, 1973, p. 27). Taken together, the positivists failed to see sexism in access to power, nor how this could intersect with race, class, and other characteristics. Thus, in the positivist school, even when some professed that social and economic factors could also play a role, women and girls’ criminal (and some other) behaviors were believed to be largely biologically determined and often tied to their sexuality. The complexity of their criminal behavior was reduced to a challenge of the traditional gender role—a role not rooted in nature (biology), but rather societally specified. The positivists assumed that the girl or woman who defied the prescribed gender role had a problem, and thus the positivists were blind to the possibility that there was a problem with gender prescribed roles, regardless of girls and women’s resources or situations, individually or collectively. They failed to recognize the racist and classist aspects of patriarchy whereby the prescribed societal gender roles often vary across race and class, with different (racist and classist) implications among women and girls (Rice, 1990). As we will see in the following three chapters, women and girls’ offending is often still interpreted through a positivist lens, and the responses to offending girls and women are too often practiced with vestiges of the traditional or positivist approach, fraught with sexism, racism, and classism, and sexnegativity, including a hypervigilance about women and girls’ sexuality.

BIOSOCIAL AND EVOLUTIONARY (PSYCHOLOGICAL) THEORIES (BSETS) One could argue that the primary legacy of the positivists from the 1990s are the researchers promoting the biosocial and evolutionary

theories (BSETs). Since the 1990s, BSET theorists have gained increasing recognition for their claims that we cannot ignore biology in the commission of crimes or even blaming victims (at least in part, responsible for their victimizations). Biology as the “driver” is troublingly reminiscent of the early positivist theories. Notably, SalehHanna (2017) compares the Global North’s current “biosocial evolutionary perspective with criminology’s positivism, witnessing how this alliance infects and colonizes mainstream conceptions of crime and justice” (p. 691). A 2009 article, “What Biosocial Criminology Offers Criminology,” while making a strong plug for the theory, only very briefly addresses gender and then does so in sexist contexts. Wright and Boisvert (2009) claim that men are more violent than women because women’s mating preferences are for the biologically competitive men (who will provide for them and their future children). However, it is unclear, and indeed counterintuitive, why women would prefer violent men and why they would be better providers and fathers. A large BSET study using U.S. federal sentencing data found that both men and women committed less physical aggression during property offending if they were parents (as opposed to nonparents) (Boothroyd & Cross, 2016). Although the authors did not have access to the individuals’ testosterone levels, they concluded that parental status was related to physical aggression due to lowered testosterone levels because other studies have reported lower testosterone levels during parenthood (which seems like a bit of a scientific leap to make). L. Ellis (2004, p. 144) believes that the Y-chromosome and testosterone predispose most males to criminality in the form of nonplayful competition and victimizing behaviors around the onset of puberty “as they start their reproductive careers,” although other research insists “there is no evidence of an increase in aggression coinciding with puberty” (Archer, 2009, p. 259). Another study “proving” the link between male sex hormones and crime was a study of college students’ self-reported criminality and “androgenpromoted” physical traits, such as body hair, body strength, and penis size; as predicted, the men who reported the largest penises, most body hair, and so on, reported the most violent criminality (L. Ellis, Das, & Buker, 2008). L. Ellis et al. (2008) do not seem concerned that the men “doing gender” as hypermasculinity might also exaggerate their strength, body hair, and penis sizes. Alternatively, Archer (2009) believes that “physical aggression

occurs as an innate pattern of behavior [by age two in both sexes] that is subsequently inhibited by social learning, to different extents in boys and girls” (p. 265).

BSET as an Explanation of Sexual Abuse A significant amount of the BSET resurgence in the last quarter century has been to explain infidelity (cheating on one’s romantic/sexual partner) and gender-based abuses such as rape, intimate partner abuse, and child abuse (including child sexual abuse) rather than general offending or delinquency. Even in her groundbreaking book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (discussed more fully in Chapters 7 and 8), feminist Brownmiller (1975) views rape as possible because men have penetrating penises and women have penetrable vaginas. BSET explanations of men’s violence against women emphasize that “sexually aggressive behavior is a biopsychosocial phenomenon that is primarily engaged in by males” (Hall, Hirschman, Graham, & Zaragoza, 1993, p. 1). But both males and females have genitalia that can be abused, and Cahill (2001) effectively argues that males also have penetrable anuses that can be sexually abused (by any gender). If we recognize that it is the ability to coerce or physically overpower another person through forceful sexual contact, then clearly sexual abusers and victims alike can be any gender. Given that most babysitting, childcare work, childhood teaching, and parenting are performed by women (or girls) who typically have considerably more physical power than the children they oversee, we would expect child sexual abuse to be predominantly committed by women and girls. This is clearly not the case and defies the BSET contention that physical domination ability is the main determinant of sexually abusing, Many current-day promoters of BSET claim to integrate the biosocial approach with social theory (just as some of the early positivists did), and some, even with feminist theory. But the result (similar to the similarly situated early positivists) is claiming that biology, with perhaps a smattering of sociological forces, predicts why females are victims and males are offenders. In this context, gender-based abuses (i.e., rape and intimate partner abuse) are typically explained (or even excused) by such biological forces as sex drives and hormones. Key to the evolutionary theory approach is the concept of adaptation. As applied to investigating why men/boys perpetrate rape, it is as an adaption that “would increase the reproduction or

survival of descendants and, therefore, that person’s genetic material” (Burch & Gallup, 2004, p. 244). L. Ellis (1993, p. 23) uses natural selection to explain that our gender roles are a result of our biological dispositions, whereby men gain by being pushy about sex and women gain by showing such feminine traits as coyness and hesitancy. He suggests men and boys compete for the best female sex partners, whereas girls and women compete with each other to find the best male who can provide for their offspring. Ellis believes that males do not rape because they want to dominate females but that they use these dominating and aggressive rape behaviors simply to copulate (have sexual intercourse) and spread their genes (p. 24). Similarly, Duntley and Shackelford (2008) report, “Rape is a strategy aimed directly at obtaining reproductive resources at a cost to the victim. A male rapist may benefit from the behavior by siring offspring that he may not otherwise have produced” (p. 376). Sociobiologists believe that men “naturally” pursue more sexual partners (to better plant their seeds), while women are more “naturally” monogamous (to be choosier in picking the fathers of their future children). Baker’s (1996) Sperm Wars details (without any references to other research and no subsequent validation) ways in which sperm are “egg-getters” (try to fertilize ova) and “egg-killers” (try to kill other men’s sperm inside of women) and how confusing, unpredictable, and moody women are relative to men. L. Ellis and Walsh (1997) claim that women resist sex/rape until they are confident the male will provide for their offspring. Of course, this simplistic reasoning does not explain why men and boys, premenstrual girls, postmenopausal women, women and girls on effective birth control, and others would resist rape. Not surprisingly, Ellis and Walsh’s perspective is not only sexist but lso racist and classist. For example, they suggest African Americans are more criminal than Whites and Asian Americans due to “an evolutionary foundation for racial/ethnic differences” (p. 252). In 2000, Thornhill and Palmer published the controversial book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, claiming that an evolutionary approach is better suited to understanding the causes of rape than are social science and social learning. Like L. Ellis (1993), they view rape as an adaptation used by men who are unsuccessful in their efforts to have consensual sex with women. The book has been soundly criticized on numerous

fronts, including ignoring scientific evidence, misrepresenting facts, and being simplistic and misleading (Coyne & Berry, 2000; Ward & Siegert, 2002). With an amusing example, Coyne and Berry (2000) point out that evolutionary psychology and the focus on adaptation, specifically that natural selection is the basis for all human actions, are problematic: “The most imaginative and committed sociobiologist would be hard-pressed to show that masturbation, sadomasochism, bestiality, and pornography’s enthusiasm for high heels are all direct adaptations” (p. 122). A 2014 BSET study using NIBRS (a U.S. police database) define it as “the largest sample of sexual assaults ever analyzed” (Felson & Cundiff, 2014, p. 281). The aim was to show that sexual assault is an exception to the Felson and Cundiff’s earlier age-desistance phenomenon (that most offenders slow or stop their criminal behavior as they age). They state: Older men have almost as strong a sexual attraction to younger women as do younger men…. However, since young women tend not to be sexually attracted to older men, older men do not have sexual access to young women. While prostitutes provide older men opportunities for consensual sex with young women, their services are expensive. As a result, some men use illegitimate means, i.e., sexual assault, to satisfy their conventional aspirations. (Felson & Cundiff, 2014, p. 274) Felson and Cundiff’s simplistic argument is that young women aged 15 to 19 are at the greatest risk of men raping them “because of their contact with motivated offenders, their vulnerability, and their sexual maturity and attractiveness” (p. 282), although they include no measures of victims’ and nonvictims’ “attractiveness” or sexual maturity. Because Felson and Cundiff (2014) found “males of all ages are likely to target young women” (p. 278) (but males also target boys and young men) and older men are more likely to commit sexual than physical assaults (p. 279), they concluded “the tendency for sexual assaults to involve male offenders and female victims reflects male sexuality rather than attitudes about women” (p. 273). In sum, BSET is used to excuse rapists while blaming biology and women and girl victims.

BSET as an Explanation of Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) In addition to sexual abuse, BSET is used as an explanation for intimate partner abuse (IPA) (domestic violence) (Janssen et al., 2005). One evolutionary psychologist insinuates that all women are more attracted to more domineering men (Barber, 1995, p. 418). A small study solely of men verbally and physically abusive to their wives attributed their IPA to their elevated testosterone levels (Soler, Vinayak, & Quadagno, 2000), while a larger study found no relationship between men and boys’ aggression and their testosterone levels (Huesmann, Lefkowitz, Eron, & Walder, 1984). Yet other BSET proponents hypothesized that “men’s partnerdirected violence is produced by psychological mechanisms evolved to solve the adaptive problem of paternity uncertainty” (Kaighobadi & Shackelford, 2009, p. 282). Other BSET studies focus on “competitively disadvantaged males” (CDMs), hypothesizing that men who rate as low quality for mates because of their low socioeconomic status and physical unattractiveness are more likely to use coerciveness and violence to gain sex (because it may be their only access to it) and to use violent sex against their wives and children in order to terrorize their wives (dominating their wives through abusing their children) into not leaving them (e.g., Figueredo et al., 2001; Figueredo & McCloskey, 1993). Once again, this approach is inherently offensive on numerous levels (e.g., class and societal ideas of attractiveness). Ironically, Figueredo and his colleagues’ test of this found the opposite of what was hypothesized: CDMs were more likely to abuse competitively disadvantaged females (CDFs) than the “higher mate quality [women] partners” they would seemingly need to abuse to “keep” (Figueredo et al., 2001, p. 315). A survey study of women claimed to confirm BSET, reporting that women’s fear of crime levels predict their long-term mates, specifically that women with higher fear of crime levels prefer “aggressively dominant and physically formidable” mates (Snyder et al., 2011). This study did not address the culturally gendering phenomena confirmed by other research, by which women and girls are socialized to be afraid of crime and rape (Rader & Haynes, 2011; van Eijk, 2017), so much so that protecting themselves from men raping them is as a realistic, additional, gendered, and financial burden girls and women bear (Bitton & Shavit, 2015). And then there

is the stark irony of society encouraging women to seek protection from men for men’s gender-based abuses of them.

Feminist and Other Responses to the Application of BSET to Gender-Based Abuses Still others (not cited earlier) support BSET and/or using biology as a “cause” of crime, including gender-based abuses (e.g., Barber, 1995; Crawford & Johnston, 1999; Hines & Saudino, 2004; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Yet, the BSET explanation that gender-based abuses are biologically determined does not simply fly in the face of feminism but of science as well (e.g., Cahill, 2001; Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Small, 1993; T. Taylor, 1996). Evolution, Gender, and Rape, edited by C. B. Travis (2003), is an interdisciplinary book comprised solely of responses to Thornhill and Palmer (2000) and is unanimously critical of the “bad science” employed in A Natural History of Rape. Perhaps Cahill (2001) sums it up best when she poignantly argues in Rethinking Rape: “It is at least theoretically possible to understand the penis as other than a penetrating, violent tool, and indeed to rid it of such meaning entirely; and it is this theoretical possibility that affords room for hope” (p. 24). A book edited by Björkqvist and Niemelä (1992), titled Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression, reports studies by leading scholars regarding sex differences and similarities in aggressive behavior. One study concludes, “The majority of evidence indicates that in the general population differences in aggressiveness reflect the level of testosterone only to a limited extent, if at all. There is no reason to suggest that testosterone causes the behavior of males and females to differ markedly” (Benton, 1992, p. 46). Other studies reported in this book are convincing in their overview of scientific research, maintaining that “too much” is being made of biological differences between females and males in attempts to “explain away” cultural differences. Indeed, a chapter on “biology and male aggression” concludes, “Finally, we can look forward to the day when the myth that male animals are more aggressive than females can no longer be used by those who would argue that war is the product of biology rather than culture” (Adams, 1992, p. 24). Indeed, in the introductory chapter, the editors state, “There is no reason to believe that women overall should be less motivated to be aggressive than men” (Björkqvist & Niemelä, 1992, p. 14). Rather, they claim that

gender differences in aggressive behavior depend on culture, age, and situations. A study of the role of sexual frustration as a cause of rape compared white, college undergraduate, unmarried heterosexual male students, 71 who identified as (consistent with the definition of) date rapists and 227 who did not (Kanin, 1985). All of the rapists reported raping girlfriends with whom they had previously experienced consensual sex. Contrary to what the biosocial and other theories would suggest, these men appeared to rape not because they did not have access to consensual sex (i.e., they were sexually frustrated) but rather because it was part of their socialization. This study found that the rapists were sexual predators, using many tactics to try to gain sex: “Sexual exploitation of the female largely permeates their entire male-female approach” (Kanin, 1985, p. 224). Moreover, those young men with the most success at obtaining heterosexual outlets consensually were also the young men most likely to date rape. The self-identified date rapists were far more likely to report their sex-obsessed behaviors as beginning with their peer groups in high school and to feel entitled to frequent sexual encounters. Kanin (1985) concluded that date rapists have a different sexual socialization that results in “an inordinately high value on sexual accomplishment” and an “exaggerated sexual impulse” (p. 229). A national study to determine whether boys and men’s’ lower levels of self-control (relative to that of girls and women) are due to genetic sex differences reported that genetic influences on self-control are the same regardless of one’s sex/gender (Boisvert, Wright, Knopik, & Vaske, 2013). A meta-analysis, drawing on data from more than 30 studies in eight countries, tested whether “natural selection shaped jealousy,” hypothesizing that men are primarily jealous over a mate’s sexual infidelity [cheating] and women over a mate’s emotional infidelity” (C. R. Harris, 2003, p. 102). In contrast to BSET, they found no gender differences regarding jealousy over infidelity. One large study found that gender inequality and IPA were positively related: the more inequality, the more IPA. Thus, the author concluded that we should shift our focus from violent people to the violent cultures that produce them (Handwerker, 1998, p. 206). Significantly, BSETs are not only insulting to girls and women, viewing them as pathetic, needy competitors for male attention, but also insulting to boys and men, viewing them as incapable of

controlling their biological urges or in a constant need of fertilizing eggs and creating children (see Belknap, 1997). Fanghanel and Lim (2017) argue that the “contemporary rape culture” is the root of the “contemporary antagonism in gendered safety discourse” for women and girls: the fine line of balancing their right to be “free” in public and their “obligation to be safe and ‘properly’ feminine” (p. 341).

STRAIN THEORIES Traditional Strain Theory (TST) Merton (1938, 1949) developed (traditional) strain theory (TST) drawing on Durkheim’s anomie (state of normlessness) theory. A refreshing departure from biological determinism, Merton premised that strain and frustration occur when individuals are taught the same cultural goals with unequal access to attain these shared goals (e.g., owning a home, acquiring a college education). Among the criticisms of TST, the most important applicable to gender and race is that TST measures strains primarily in terms of class inequalities, comparing the strains of the working class to the middle class, and then only of boys. Approaches that focus on poverty as an explanation for criminal behavior, while preferable to biological explanations, frequently ignore that women are usually disproportionately impoverished compared with men, yet they commit far less crime (Faith, 1993, p. 107). In his book Delinquent Boys, A. K. Cohen (1955) adapted Merton’s TST to explain U.S. delinquent gangs among working-class boys. In Cohen’s analysis, boys have broad and varied goals and ambitions, whereas girls’ narrow ambitions center around males: dating, dancing, attractiveness, and, generally, acquiring a boyfriend or husband. Thus, men “are the rational doers and achievers” in U.S. culture, while girls and women exist solely to be the helpmates and companions of men (Naffine, 1987). Cohen (1955) also used racist code-speak in equating “aspects of ethnic backgrounds as examples of ‘subcultures’ but does not fully employ the concepts associated with racial inequality to examine boys’ delinquency” (K. J. Cook, 2016, p. 337).

A strength of A. K. Cohen’s (1955) work is addressing the construction of gender for boys, in that his work vividly depicts the role of masculinity in boys’ delinquency, and he is likely the first theorist to pay attention to the construction of masculinity (he drew on Freud to do so). In contrast, however, he devoted only four pages of his book to girl delinquents, portraying them as boring and only capable of expressing their delinquency through sexual promiscuity (Mann, 1984; Naffine, 1987). In Cohen’s prime, and still today, the term promiscuity is rarely if ever applied to boys and men, and Cohen joined the disturbing positivists’ tendency to inextricably link girls’ criminality and sexuality, while ignoring or implicitly applauding the identical sexual conduct of boys. In short, Cohen believed that boys have the “real” strains of employment and income in their lives, whereas girls’ only strain is to date and marry well. Cohen was so confident of the accuracy of this stance on girls that he saw no need to confirm his hypothesis through data collection. R. R. Morris (1964), the first scholar to apply strain theory to girls (also applying it to boys), viewed girls as more dimensional than did her predecessors: Girls were not interested just in husband hunting but were also concerned with other affective relationships, such as with family members. Morris found that relative to boys, girls, delinquent and not, were faced with less subcultural support and more disapproval for delinquency than boys, and she purported this might explain girls’ lower delinquency rates. It is instructive that studies in the late 1960s and 1970s found that girls’ efforts to find mates were not related to their delinquency rates (Sandhu & Allen, 1969) and that the patterns of boys’ and girls’ delinquent behavior were quite similar, except that boys’ rates were higher (Naffine, 1987, p. 18). Research on gender differences in the role of youth subcultures (often measured as gangs) tends to confirm that boys’ subcultures are more prone to delinquency than girls’ subcultures (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Lerman, 1968; Morash, 1983, 1986; R. R. Morris, 1964, 1965; Rahav, 1984). Notably, research testing traditional strain theory has occurred rarely since the end of the 1990s. Overall, these research findings have been inconsistent regarding whether the strain of “blocked opportunity” is more, less, or equally related to boys’ and girls’ delinquency rates. Some studies claimed that strain similarly influenced girls’ and boys’ delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1979; Figueira-McDonough & Selo, 1980; D. A. Smith, 1979); others found it more relevant in predicting girls’ than boys’ delinquency (Datesman, Scarpitti, & Stephenson, 1975; J. O. Segrave & Hastad,

1983); and one found that strain is more influential in predicting boys’ than girls’ delinquency (R. L. Simons, Miller, & Aigner, 1980). Yet another study reported that TST variables were related in the opposite direction as expected for white females but in the expected direction for African American females (G. D. Hill & Crawford, 1990). Overall, the findings are quite mixed regarding whether strain, as it is traditionally defined (as blocked opportunities), affects boys’ and girls’ delinquency similarly or differently. Notably, gang studies in the 1980s and 1990s largely rebuff Cohen’s gendered contention, finding that girls’, like boys’, gang membership, is driven to fulfill identities in environments plagued by classism, racism, and sexism (e.g., Campbell, 1987; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). With the development of general strain theory, traditional strain theory has been far less tested in recent decades.

Opportunity Theory (OT) A. K. Cohen’s TST-based (mis)portrayal of delinquent girls was reaffirmed in Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) book Delinquency and Opportunity, but with a different twist in their version of strain theory, which they called opportunity theory (OT). Like Cohen’s TST, Cloward and Ohlin’s OT assumed delinquent boys, but not delinquent girls, had unequal legal opportunities to attain the American dream; girls encountered only frivolous concerns, such as finding boyfriends. Cloward and Ohlin’s “twist” on TST is that in addition to unequal legal opportunities, youths (and adults) also have varied access to learn delinquent and criminal behaviors, and access to learn delinquency/criminality assists one in becoming delinquent/criminal. Bottcher’s (1995, 2001) data on the siblings of incarcerated boys provide some support for OT, mostly concerning boys’ greater opportunities to commit crimes. The girls and boys were similarly barred by class from legal means to reach social and economic success, but girls’ freedom was limited relative to boys’ in their demands to care for younger children. Because the boys could take part in more activities, meet more people, and cover wider geographical areas, they were more likely than the girls were to report conflict, peer pressure, and delinquency at younger ages (Bottcher, 1995, pp. 53–54).2 Similar to the case with TST, little research has been conducted on OT in the current century, and when it is, it rarely addresses gender. An exception is Becker and

McCorkel’s (2011) study of over 16 million crime incidents reported to the police, which found support for OT. They stress “that gender is a crucial intervening variable shaping both [OT’s] social location and social relationships…. Even within shared social locations, gender moderates access to social networks and this, in turn, influences access to licit and illicit opportunities” (p. 102). 2Bottcher’s

(1995) study provides information relevant to many theories and will be further cited.

General Strain Theory (GST) Agnew (1985, 1992) revised TST into general strain theory (GST). GST advances and expands earlier strain theories by broadening the sources and types of adaptations to strains and acknowledging that goals may vary depending on an individual’s gender, race, and class. Rather than simply focusing on structural factors limiting financial success (like TST), GST includes three psychosocial strain sources: (1) the presence of negative stimuli, (2) the loss of positive stimuli, and (3) the failure to achieve positive goals. According to GST, whether responses to strain and frustrations are law-abiding or delinquent depends on an individual youth’s personality, self-esteem, social support system, and so on (e.g., if anger is the response, the coping strategy is more likely to be delinquent) (Agnew 1992). Additionally, GST addresses the importance of allowing for varied goals due to individuals’ gender, race, and class differences (Broidy, 2001). Stated another way, GST suggests that both strains and the responses to these strains may be gendered, raced, or classed. Broidy and Agnew (1997) purported the gender gap in offending could also be due to gender differences in the types of strains and gender differences in the emotional responses to strains. Bottcher (2001, p. 894) criticized GST for failing to consider gender as “a product of individual and interpersonal action,” and Agnew (2001) himself published concerns with the tests of GST, specifically that many key strains outlined in GST were not included in the tests and that most GST tests focused on a single, cumulative measure of strain. For example, he noted that child abuse (including sexual abuse) and criminal victimization are important to account for as stressors for delinquent behavior. Additionally, Agnew pointed out that it is necessary to look at additional characteristics of the strain: The more severe, unjust, lasting, and central to the individual’s life

the strain is, the more likely it will result in anger, and thus, criminal behavior. Moreover, he recognized that abuse and criminal victimization are often perceived as unjust and serious and thus could result in stronger feelings of anger and injustice than other strains. Stated alternatively, victims of abuse may engage in delinquent or criminal behavior in efforts to compensate for the serious injustices they have experienced (Agnew, 2001, 2002). Significantly, a 2008 review of GST (Cernkovich, Lanctôt, & Giordano, 2008) criticizes the tests of it for using almost exclusively male samples. Many recent GST studies have boy-only samples (e.g., Del Toro et al., 2019). Even when girls, women, or both are included, gender is used as a control variable rather than to understand how strains are gendered (e.g., Capowich, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2001; C. Farrell & Zimmerman, 2018; Gallupe & Baron, 2009; Hay, 2003; Hay & Evans, 2006; Jang & Rhodes, 2012; M. C. Johnson & Menard, 2012; Langton & Piquero, 2007). In addition, abuse and trauma victimizations are far too often left out of the “strain” measures or analyses (e.g., Capowich et al., 2001; Cheung & Cheung, 2010; Dierenfeldt, Shadwick, & Kwak, 2019; D. Eitle, 2002; Hoffmann & Su, 1997). A GST study focusing on “family strain” did not include sexual abuse victimization (Hay, 2003). Broidy’s (2001) test of GST reported that while strain causes anger in both sexes, girls were more likely to report other negative emotions (e.g., guilt, worthlessness, disappointment, depression, worry, fear, and insecurity). Broidy and Agnew (1997) found that both strain and the responses to strain explain gender differences in offending. For example, compared with boys, girls reported more restrictions on their lives and behaviors and greater family caretaking expectations; they were also more likely to report all types of abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual). While girls reported feeling more stress surrounding close relationships with friends and family, boys reported feeling more strain about external achievement such as material success. Another study found, as predicted by GST, that anger was a significant predictor of violent, property, and drug crimes, and criminal behavior was related to sexual abuse, homelessness, relative deprivation, and more deviant peers (Baron, 2004). Although this study reported that gender “was a significant predictor of crime” (Baron, 2004, p. 474), it did not explain how. Notably, tests of GST often find many gender similarities in responses to the same strains. One study confirmed GST, finding

that stressful life events increased the likelihood of delinquency, but this relationship was the same regardless of a youth’s gender, class, self-esteem, or perceived control over her or his environment (Hoffmann & Cerbone, 1999). Similarly, another GST study found that individual strains (i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse, academic problems, future expectations, school dropout, and criminal legal system involvement) increased all three types of offending studied (property crimes, threatening interpersonal aggression, and using interpersonal aggression), and the increase was consistent across gender (Jennings, Piquero, Gover, & Perez, 2009). A large GST study of youths who were referred to juvenile court looked at how gender and living situation were related to initial and recidivate arrests and youths’ responses to strain regarding drug offending (Grothoff, Kempf-Leonard, & Mullins, 2014). Girls reported 3 times as much child abuse as boys (physical, sexual, and emotional), and while it increased girls’ drug arrests (as expected), it decreased boys’. Boys, but not girls, not living with one or both parents were more likely to recidivate. Mental health problems increased both girls’ and boys’ drug offenses similarly (Grothoff et al., 2014). Hay’s (2003) GST study measured family strain using five dimensions: physical punishment, parental rejection, psychological control, unfair discipline, and non-intact family among high school students. Hay found no gender differences in youth anger levels resulting from family strain; however, girls’ feelings of guilt associated with family strain were higher than boys’. Moreover, this gender difference in the response of guilt to family strain explained much of the overall gender difference in delinquency, in that anger encourages delinquency while guilt discourages delinquency. Notably, the GST tests have focused far more on anger than depression. Many studies conclude that boys report significantly more delinquent behavior than girls do, whereas girls report more negative self-feelings (e.g., depression, anxiety, self-esteem) than boys do (Jang & Rhodes, 2012; Jennings et al., 2009; Kaplan & Lin, 2000; Kaufman, 2009; Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999; Ostrowsky & Messner, 2005). Kaufman’s (2009) longitudinal GST study found that depressive symptoms predicted suicidal thoughts, weekly drinking, running away, and violent offending among girls but “only” suicidal thoughts and running away among boys. Ostrowsky and Messner’s (2005) GST study found victimized young adults were more likely to commit property and violent offenses than

their nonvictimized counterparts, strains tended to have more impact on violent than property crimes, and strains were related to depression. Notably, strains were more commonly associated with depression among the young women than among the young men, but the young men who were strained and depressed were more likely to offend (Ostrowsky & Messner, 2005). A GST study of women and men involved in drug courts across the United States found recent sexual or physical abuse increased the risk of further substance use, and this was associated with (or mediated by) increased depression following either of these (sexual or physical) abuses (Zweig, Yahner, & Rossman, 2012). However, the resulting depression could not explain the reuse of substances for recent sexual abuse victims as completely as depression explained the drug reuse by recent physical abuse victims (Zweig et al., 2012). Watts and Iratzoqui (2019) conducted one of the few GST studies that included girls and boys, ran the models separately for each, and included three types of abuse or maltreatment (i.e., physical, sexual, and neglect by a parent or guardian before sixth grade) and six selfreported offenses (i.e., violent, property, drug use, drug-selling, alcohol use, running away). They concluded that “child maltreatment increases delinquent behavior during middle adolescence, that different types of maltreatment differentially shape delinquent behavior, and that these relationships are marked more by gender similarity than gender difference” (p. 178). Specifically, their findings, summarized in Table 2.1, indicate that the three abuses impact both girls’ and boys’ violent offenses and running away the most, and alcohol and drug use the least. Child neglect is more frequently significantly related to the types of offenses than is physical or sexual abuse. Although other research shows that girls are significantly more likely than boys to be victimized by sexual abuse, this study found sexual abuse victimization is more likely to increase boys’ than girls’ subsequent offending—specifically, their violent offending, drug-selling, and running away. Indeed, all abuse in general impacts boys’ likelihood of subsequent offending far more often than it does girls’ likelihood in this study. One could speculate that the other GST research on gender differences in anger and depression (as reviewed earlier) could incite boys to be more likely to externalize (via anger) and girls to be more likely to internalize (via depression) their negative emotions from being abused and neglected.

Table 2.1 ● Watts and Iratzoqui’s Test of General Strain Theory (GST): The Impact of Different Types of Abuse/Maltreatment on Different Types of Offendinga

Offense Type × Abuse Type Girls Boys Violent Offense Physical Abuse

+

Sexual Abuse Neglect

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Property Offense Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Neglect Drug Use Physical Abuse

Offense Type × Abuse Type Girls Boys Sexual Abuse Neglect

+

+

Drug-Selling Physical Abuse

+

Sexual Abuse Neglect Alcohol Use Physical Abuse

+

Sexual Abuse Neglect

+

+

+

+

Running Away Physical Abuse

Offense Type × Abuse Type Girls Boys Sexual Abuse Neglect

+ +

+

aThe

models controlled for race/ethnicity, parent’s education, public assistance (SES measure), self-control, peer deviancy, and closeness to mother. Offending variables are self-reported (not necessarily known by the criminal legal system). The abuse/maltreatment variables only measured these abuses before the start of sixth grade and if perpetrator was a parent or adult caregiver. Source: Watts, S. J., & Iratzoqui, A. (2019). Gender, child maltreatment, and delinquency. Victims & Offenders, 14(2), 165–182. Note: Data from U.S. National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Sample = 14,322 youths followed over time.

Some GST research has included only girls and women in their samples. Belknap, Holsinger, and Little (2012) applied GST to incarcerated girls to study how different types of abuse (differentiated by family-perpetrated vs. non-family-perpetrated and sexual abuse vs. physical abuse) impacted girls’ self-harming (e.g., cutting, suicide attempts, etc.), while controlling for the girls’ sexual identities. Consistent with “community” (nonincarcerated sample) studies, they found that sexual minority status (SMS) girls (those who identified as lesbian or bisexual) reported more of all types of abuses (than their straight counterparts) and more self-harming behaviors than non-SMS (straight) girls. However, when controlling for abuse, the relationships between sexual identity (SMS vs. nonSMS) and self-harming disappeared (Belknap, Holsinger et al., 2012). Stated alternatively, the relationship between sexual identity and self-harming was indirect and completely explained by abuse; this indicated that SMS girls were disproportionately abused as a gender-based/homophobic response, and this was related to selfharming. (Thus, deterring homophobic assaults and bullying will likely deter the association between SMS and self-harming.) This needs to be tested in community samples as well.

A GST study of drug and alcohol use among women incarcerated in Oklahoma looked at a long list of strains (primarily different types of abuse and traumas), as well as anger, self-esteem, and antisocial behavior (Sharp, Peck, & Hartsfield, 2012). Consistent with GST, the greater the cumulative strain, the greater the women’s anger, and the more likely they were to abuse substances. Also, both sexual abuse and witnessing their mothers being abused were related to daily drug use. Contrary to GST, self-esteem and antisocial behavior were not related to daily drug or alcohol use (Sharp et al., 2012).

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY (DAT) AND SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY (SLT) Differential Association Theory (DAT) E. H. Sutherland, first alone and then in collaboration with Cressey, developed the theory of differential association (DAT) in the classic text Principles of Criminology (E. H. Sutherland, 1939; E. H. Sutherland & Cressey, 1966). Sutherland’s attempt was to move the major explanation of criminal behavior from poverty to association: Just as any other behavior is learned, so is criminal behavior. Thus, one’s peer group association is instrumental in determining whether one becomes delinquent. Although Sutherland and Cressey agreed with Cohen’s contention that there is unequal access to success in the United States, they departed from Cohen’s belief that all classes have internalized the same definition of success (i.e., the goals of middle-class males). Further, Sutherland and Cressey claimed that criminal subcultures are not unique to frustrated working-class male youths; people of all classes, including white-collar workers, can and do partake in criminal behavior. Similarly, whereas Cohen defined a U.S. culture that excludes women and girls, Sutherland and Cressey’s perspective is not so exclusively male in theory and is presented as a general non-sex-specific theory (Naffine, 1987). Despite Sutherland and Cressey’s promise of a non-sex-specific theory, they rarely addressed girls. And where girls are briefly mentioned, they are viewed as uniform and homogeneous. Again, girls are treated as peripheral and insignificant to the mainstream

culture. Thus, Sutherland and Cressey’s gender-neutral approach exists only in words, not in content. What is additionally disturbing is the easy acceptance of Sutherland and Cressey’s view of males as “free to engage in a range of behaviors” and the view of girls as belonging in the family (Naffine, 1987). Further, girls’ perceived tendency toward abiding the law is portrayed as dull rather than as positive and moral (Naffine, 1987). Feminist criticisms of DAT have centered mainly on Sutherland and Cressey’s decision to avoid discussing girls and women in any meaningful way (see K. J. Cook, 2016; Leonard, 1982; Naffine, 1987). K. J. Cook (2016, p. 336) takes this on most effectively by citing Sutherland and Cressey (1974) as stating “no other trait has as great a statistical importance as does sex in differentiating criminals from noncriminals,” and yet this was followed by their dismissal of sex and gender. K. J. Cook (2016) states, “And so, with the stroke of the pen, Sutherland and Cressey proclaim that the leading predictor of crime is inconsequential to understanding the causes of crime, and amputated gender from serious consideration by the scholarly community for decades to come” (p. 336). Some feminists have suggested, however, that DAT is a useful way of examining male and female delinquency rates and of explaining gender differences. Two points are important. First, girls’ relatively lower crime rates may largely be a result of the constraints they experience compared with boys. For example, at least traditionally, girls have been expected to stay closer to home, are more likely to have curfews, are more likely to be disciplined (particularly for minor infractions and sexual experimentation), and are generally provided less freedom than their brothers and other boys. The differential socialization of girls and boys, then, is believed to result in different or gendered behaviors of girls and boys (see Hoffman-Bustamante, 1973; Leonard, 1982; Lorber, 1994; Messner, 2000; Allison Morris, 1987; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Risman, 2004). The second point is that the increase in girls’ delinquency rates in the past couple of decades might be explained by females’ increased freedom. Even Cressey (1964) asserted that where there is greater gender equality, the association between crime and gender is likely to be lower. Although Sutherland and Cressey failed to examine the relevance of DAT for an explanation of girls’ criminality, others did so, and DAT provides some useful insight to girls’ lower offending behaviors relative to boys’. For example, while finding support for DAT and a strong relationship between delinquent friends and delinquent

behavior for both girls and boys, Hindelang (1971) reported that girls had fewer delinquent friends and less delinquent behavior than boys did. Giordano (1978) found delinquent girls were significantly influenced by their peers, but more so by their girl peers than their boy peers. Mears, Ploeger, and Warr (1998) found that while girls reported greater moral disapproval of all types of offenses, this could not solely explain boys’ higher rates of offending. Rather, it was this greater moral disapproval combined with the ability or desire to better block their delinquent peers’ influence that accounted for girls’ lower offense rates. Heimer and De Coster (1999) found that emotional bonds to families resulted in less attachment to violent behavior for girls (but not boys), traditional views of gender decreased girls’ (but not boys’) violence, and boys (but not girls) learned violence from aggressive friends and coercive parental discipline.

Social Learning Theory (SLT) Social learning theory (SLT) originated in the late 1930s, with renowned psychologist B. F. Skinner positing the stimulus–response determinants of human behavior (i.e., with various stimuli, how do people respond?). Skinner’s explanations of behavior were via operant conditioning, or how behaviors are reinforced or modified via punishment and rewards (Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Skinner, 1938). N. E. Miller and Dollard’s Social Learning and Imitation, published in 1941, also posited the stimulus–response concept whereby behaviors are typically learned habits that are reinforced through social interactions. Albert Bandura furthered this theory, including a study comparing aggressive and nonaggressive boys (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Bandura & Walters, 1959). Akers and Burgess (e.g., Akers, 1985; Burgess & Akers, 1966) then integrated SLT and operant conditioning into Sutherland’s differential association theory (DAT, as a more comprehensive approach to explain criminal behavior, whereby operant conditions can move learners toward or away from crime. One of the encouraging aspects of SLT is that if criminal behavior can be learned, it can also be unlearned. Given that feminist scholars (see Giordano & Copp, 2019) and race scholars (e.g., Du Bois, 1899; Muhammad, 2010) have long held that environment/culture are the determinants of gender and race inequality, respectively, it is not surprising that they tend to support the posited parts of SLT.

M. B. Harris’s (1996) extensive overview of research on physically (not sexually) aggressive behavior found it more consistent with SLT than BSET, stating that “cultural norms and gender role stereotypes, previous experiences with aggression, attitudes toward the aggression of others, and judgments of the justifiability of retaliation are even more important influences on aggression” than are biological factors (p. 141). Rader and Haynes (2011) make a compelling argument for using SLT to study gendered fear of crime socialization: Women’s fear of crime is higher than men’s not because they are more likely to be victims, but because they are more likely to be victimized by rape and they are socialized by society to be afraid of rape. Notably, a study of women’s gun ownership from 1973 to 2010 found that despite gun manufacturers’ increased marketing to women (using women’s fear), there was; a decline in women’s gun ownership; researchers concluded that “hobbies and lifestyle factors may better explain women’s interests in firearms” than their fear of crime (Koeppel & Nobles, 2017, p. 43).

SOCIAL CONTROL THEORIES (SCTS) The theories discussed thus far have focused on what makes people break the law. Conversely, social control theories (SCTs) are more concerned with explaining what compels most of society to abide by the law.

Social Bond Theory (SBT): Conventional Ties In his 1969 book Causes of Delinquency, Hirschi describes social bond or control theory (SCT) as focusing on what motivates people to obey laws. Given that girls are more law-abiding than boys, it seems an ideal question to include them (Naffine, 1987). Additionally, where delinquent boys were often celebrated and revered in prior theory that focused on why some people (boys and men) commit crimes, in Hirschi’s approach, the conforming (lawabiding) boy becomes ennobled and lauded as responsible, while the image of law-abiding girls in research testing the other theories are depicted as lifeless, boring, and dependent. In the prior studies asking, “Why do people offend?” the criminal boy is portrayed as exciting, instrumental, and masculine. In fact, Schur (1984) points out that men who conform are labeled “successful,” whereas there is

little or no reward for conforming women. “What all this seems to indicate is a profound criminological tendency to devalue the female and value the male even when they are doing precisely the same things” (Naffine, 1987, p. 67). Hirschi’s SCT examines four categories of “social bonds” that prevent youths from acting on their criminal desires: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Specifically, youths’ offending likelihood is related to their ties to (1) conventional people (especially parents), (2) conventional institutions and behaviors in employment and recreation, and (3) the rules of society. Although Hirschi contended that “social controls are gender neutral” (Chui & Chan, 2012, p. 372) and he included girls in his sample, oddly, he only analyzed data from boys, and only white boys, with whom he confirmed the social bond hypothesis that, indeed, the (white) boys with stronger conventional ties were less likely to report delinquency. Like Sutherland and Cressey, then, Hirschi (1) promised a non-sexspecific theory, (2) started with girls and boys in the study, and (3) for no apparent reason left out the girls (Naffine, 1987). Or, as one of the first gender-race criminology scholars, Mann (1984), points out: Travis Hirschi stratified his samples by race, sex, school, and grade. He included 1,076 black girls and 846 nonblack girls; but in the analysis of his data Hirschi admits “the girls disappear,” and he adds, “Since girls have been neglected for too long by students of delinquency, the exclusion of them is difficult to justify. I hope I return to them soon.” He didn’t. (p. 263) Numerous studies have tested SBT, or individuals’ (usually youths’) ties to conventional people. Although a few SBT studies find no gender differences in the impact of social bonds deterring offending (Figueira-McDonough, Barton, & Sarri, 1981; Ford, 2009; Loukas, Ripperger-Suhler, & Horton, 2009), far more studies report gendered SBT relationships, likely because they conducted higher-level statistical modeling. Starting with the 1970s, one study found that although attachment to conventional people greatly decreased the gender differences in reported delinquency rates, these social ties did not completely eliminate or explain boys’ higher offending rates (G. J. Jensen & Eve, 1976). Another 1970s study found that

although conventional ties predicted both girls’ and boys’ offending, this relationship was stronger for boys (Hindelang, 1973). SBT studies published in the 1980s found heroin addiction weakened women’s ties to conventional people and jobs and propelled them into lives made up of criminal people and activities (Rosenbaum 1981); a dysfunctional family of origin places girls at increased risk of proceeding from youthful status offending to adult criminal offending (Rosenbaum 1989); and some parental behaviors impact daughters’ more than sons’ delinquency likelihood, and other parental behaviors predict sons’ more than daughters’ delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987). Turning to 1990s SBT research, Bottcher’s (1995) substantial study of the siblings of incarcerated boys reported that social structure of gender is a major form of social control, specifically through activities and definitions of the youths. Bottcher (1995) and others found boys likely have more delinquent peers than girls due to their greater freedom to associate with delinquent peers; this result was confirmed by two studies in the 2000s (Church, Wharton, & Taylor, 2009; Rankin & Quane, 2002). Other 1990s studies found girls’ lower offending levels (relative to boys’ levels) were not due to weaker parental controls and supervision (Heimer & De Coster, 1999) and that the number of sisters youths have exerts no impact on their delinquency rate, whereas having more brothers increases boys’ and decreases girls’ likelihood of becoming delinquent (Lauritsen, 1993). Torstensson (1990) only included girls in her study and found social bonds to school had a significant but small role in deterring their delinquency. As for SBT studies published since 2000, a longitudinal study of youths found that while stressful events increased both girls’ and boys’ depression as well as their offending, girls were more likely than boys to respond to stressful events by being upset or distressed, and boys were more likely than girls to respond by breaking the law (De Coster & Heimer, 2001). A study of Asian American youth subgroups’ drug and alcohol use found some support for social control variables but showed that peer influence was a better predictor (Nagasawa, Qian, & Wong, 2000). After controlling for age, social control, and peer influence variables, there were no gender differences regarding drug and alcohol use among Japanese-, Chinese-, Korean-, Asian-, Indian-, and Pacific Islander American youths. However, even after controlling for these variables, among Filipino Americans, girls were more likely than boys to use drugs and alcohol, and among Southeast Asian Americans, boys

were more likely than girls to use drugs and alcohol (Nagasawa et al., 2000). A longitudinal study of youths found boys were more violent than girls even after controlling for social control and bonding variables (Huang, Kosterman, Catalano, Hawkins, & Abbott, 2001). One study of young people found that while both positive attachment bonds (e.g., to family and friends) and involvement bonds (e.g., studying, clubs, chores, etc.) resulted in less delinquency for both girls and boys, attachment bonds had a greater impact on girls (than boys) and involvement bonds had a greater impact on boys (than girls) (Huebner & Betts, 2002). Another study found that parental attachment was only related to deterring boys’, not girls’, serious delinquency, and activity involvement beyond sports was a protective factor against serious delinquency for boys but not girls (J. A. Booth, Farrell, & Varano, 2008). This same study found that sports involvement alone decreased girls’ serious delinquency but not boys’ (J. A. Booth et al., 2008). Chapple, McQuillan, and Berdahl’s (2005) study found that while girls as a group tend to have higher social bonds than boys, these bonds do not impact in a gendered manner for self-reported delinquency or theft; however, peer attachment was related to boys’, but not girls’, violent offending. Payne’s (2009) study assessed various bonds across the crimes “delinquency” and “drug use,” finding no gender differences in bonding variables’ impacts on drug use or delinquency, except that commitment and belief bonds had a stronger protective effect for boys than girls on delinquency. This finding may be because there are fewer gender differences in drug use than in delinquency overall (Payne, 2009). An SBT study solely on girls found family bonding had no protective impact on their offending (Cernkovich et al., 2008). Barnes, Hoffman, Welte, Farrell, and Dintcheff (2007) found that time spent with one’s family increased the likelihood that both girls and boys would obey the laws (thus no gender differences), yet time spent with peers resulted in greater delinquency for boys but not girls. A study on in-school delinquency and attachments found support for SBT with a few gender differences (Hart & Mueller, 2013). Two bonds, “beliefs in commonly held social norms” and “commitment to sports activities” impacted only boys’ school delinquency, but the “commitment to sports activities” was in the opposite direction than hypothesized: It increased boys’ school delinquency (Hart & Mueller, 2013). Most SBT studies are on youths, but one on adult probationers found social bonds and drug use facilitated women’s criminal behavior, whereas social bonds inhibited

men’s criminal behavior (and drugs moderated it) (De Li & MacKenzie, 2003).

A General Theory of Crime (GTC): Self-Control SCT was advanced by Gottfredson and Hirschi in A General Theory of Crime (1990). A general theory of crime (GTC) attempts to “bridge” classical and positivist traditions, where “low self-control is an individual-level attribute that causes crime at all ages, when combined with appropriate opportunities and attractive targets” (C. Taylor, 2001, p. 373). Moving the emphasis from social control to self-control, GTC purports that self-control interacts with criminal opportunity to explain criminal and delinquent behavior: Individuals with low self-control and access to opportunities to commit offenses are more prone to offend. GTC suggests that gender, race, age, and class differences in delinquency are due to how these characteristics are related to social control and self-control. GTC has been criticized, however, for (1) ignoring gender (Bottcher, 2001; S. L. Miller & Burack, 1993); (2) dismissing and misrepresenting genderbased abuse (Flavin, 2001; S. L. Miller & Burack, 1993); (3) ignoring feminist research on gender divisions within families (Flavin, 2001; S. L. Miller & Burack, 1993); (4) ignoring the role of power in crime (i.e., crime is the logical result when it is an available and desirable resource when resources are limited) (Bottcher, 2001); and (5) not clearly stipulating what constitutes both social and self-control and how they might relate and interact (“rather than setting them up as contradictory concepts”) (C. Taylor, 2001, p. 383). K. J. Cook (2016, p. 338) notes that Gottfredson and Hirschi locate “ineffective child-rearing” as the main predictor of youths’ low selfcontrol, implicating parents’ failures in monitoring, punishing, and being aware of their children’s problem behaviors. As feminists might expect, the poor parents are usually the mothers and single parents (who are also more likely to be mothers than fathers). “Like Sutherland and Cressy, and Cohen, again, they miss (or ignore) another important opportunity to advance our understanding of gender and crime” (K. J. Cook, 2016, p. 339). Gender studies testing GTC, as expected, tend to find that that girls exhibit greater self-control than boys, and even after controlling for self-control and access to delinquent opportunities, boys are still more delinquent/criminal than girls are (De Li, 2004; LaGrange &

Silverman, 1999; Nakhaie, Silverman, & LaGrange, 2000). Indeed, self-control was a better predictor of delinquency than social control, but the interaction of social control and self-control was the best predictor (De Li, 2004; Nakhaie et al., 2000). One study found selfcontrol was related to girls’ major but not their minor delinquency, and it was unrelated to boys’ delinquency (Mason & Windle, 2002). Another study of adults found that while self-control was related to gender, and self-control was related to offending for both women and men, gender became nonsignificant in predicting offending when behaviorally based measures of self-control were in the model (Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003). A study designed to test whether GTC could explain dating aggression found that lower self-control, greater opportunity to commit the abuse (e.g., more frequent private access to one’s partner), and the perception of rewards from committing the abuse (e.g., more control over a partner and satisfaction from committing the abuse) all increased the likelihood of committing this abuse (Sellers, 1999). Using a large national longitudinal data set, Shoenberger and Rocheleau (2017) found that although parents discipline daughters and sons differently, contrary to GTC, “the consequences of parental discipline on the development of selfcontrol also varies for boys and girls” (p. 283). The only parenting variables that were gendered in their relationship to self-control were spanking and discipline for grades. They impacted sons’ more than daughters’ self-control and in the opposite direction provided by GTC: Both spanking and disciplining for grades decreased boys’ self-control. Muftić and Updegrove’s (2018) large international selfreport delinquency study found, as expected, parenting directly impacts both property and violent offending, “and that while selfcontrol weakens this relationship, it does not fully mediate it”; no gender differences were found, however (p. 3058). Similarly, a 2017 Puerto Rican study on status offenses found support for GTC (and SCT) with low attachments to parents, schools, peers, and church increasing the likelihood of status crimes, but that self-control variables partially mediated this relationship (Alvarez-Rivera, Price, & Ticknor, 2017).

Power-Control Theory (PCT): Gendered Practices of Parents and Parenting

Hagan and colleagues (Hagan, Gillis, & Simpson, 1985; Hagan, Simpson, & Gillis, 1987) built on SCT with the development of power-control theory (PCT), one of the first theories to explicitly include gender. PCT joins class theory with research on gender and family relationships, focusing on power relations in two loci: the home and workplace. PCT posits that gender power positions in the workplace impact gender power relations in the home, such that the control of youths is gender-determined, and then, so is delinquency (Hagan et al., 1987, p. 183). Thus, PCT asserts that the gender power makeup in the parents’ relationship influences their children’s delinquent behavior in gendered ways: In homes where there is less sexism in the parents’ roles (usually meaning the mother works outside the home), there should be fewer gender differences between sons’ and daughters’ delinquent behaviors. An assumption of this theory is that daughters from egalitarian homes are socialized, like their brothers, to engage in risk-taking behaviors, and because risk-taking behavior is associated with delinquency, girls from the more egalitarian homes will be more delinquent than their “sisters” from traditional, patriarchal homes. Consistent with PCT, Hagan and colleagues (1987) found a greater gender difference in delinquency rates in patriarchal homes, where the mother has a lower status than the father, than in egalitarian homes, where parents have equivalent status, or where the mother is the only parent. Hagan (1989) later categorized parental controls into relational (the quality of the parent–child bond) and instrumental (parents’ degree of surveillance and supervision). Bottcher (2001) criticizes PCT for “the unsubstantiated assumption that parental power structures and control practices are key sites for the reproduction of gender as it relates to delinquency” (p. 896). Another clear limitation of PCT is the considerable number of families that are headed by a single parent or where the mother’s employment status is higher than the father’s or the father is unemployed (Uggen, 2000). Finally, PCT has been criticized for being tested largely on overall delinquency or crime rates, without addressing specific crimes where it may be more or less likely to be confirmed (Hirtenlehner, Blackwell, Leitgoeb, & Bacher, 2014), and for often leaving out such important structural factors as race (e.g., De Coster, 2012; D. Eitle, Niedrist, & Eitle, 2014; T. M. Eitle & Eitle, 2015) and class (De Coster, 2012; Gault-Sherman, 2013; Hirtenlehner et al., 2014). Leaving out race denies the significance of racial profiling and other forms of criminal legal system racism, and leaving out class denies the very real advantages of hiring lawyers,

paying bail, and so on. Given the high correlation between race and class, including a class measure might be most important in property and sex work PCT applications, where people are sometimes engaging in these activities for survival. Scholars’ assessments of PCT studies overall report less than resounding support, calling them “inconsistent” (Kruttschnitt, 1996), “modest” (Bottcher, 2001), “mixed” (T. M. Eitle & Eitle, 2015; Hirtenlehner et al., 2014), and “undecided” (Schulze & Bryan, 2017). Hirtenlehner and colleagues (2014) note that PCT research has found “has found more support generated for the ‘control’ than for the ‘power’” variables; whether a family is patriarchal or egalitarian “has found less support across tests of PCT” (p. 44). However, PCT has been confirmed in some research (e.g., Blackwell & Reed, 2003; D. Eitle et al., 2014; T. M. Eitle & Eitle, 2015; Hagan, Boehnke, & Merkens, 2004; McCarthy, Hagan, & Woodward, 1999; Wang, 2019), but one of these studies found that while girls from more egalitarian homes were more delinquent than girls from more patriarchal homes (as hypothesized), boys from more egalitarian homes were less delinquent than boys from more patriarchal homes (McCarthy et al., 1999). Another study found that while higher parental controls led to lower criminal aspirations for girls and boys, there was no significant gender difference in the effect of parental controls within either the less or more patriarchal families (Blackwell & Piquero, 2005, p. 13). Blackwell (2000) incorporated perceived threats of the informal sanctions of shame and embarrassment into the PCT model and found, as expected, that gender differences in the perceived threat of legal sanctions were greater for those raised in more patriarchal homes, with girls perceiving a higher threat from legal sanctions than boys did. Another study reported that PCT variables (e.g., mothers’ monitoring of youths) do not help explain gender differences in youths’ self-reported victimizations, but these variables do help explain gender differences in youths’ self-reported delinquency in the more patriarchal households, but the power-control variables mediate the relationship between gender and delinquency in the less patriarchal households (Blackwell, Sellers, & Schlaupitz, 2002). Blackwell (2003) tested both SBT and PCT, finding (1) only in more patriarchal households do girls report higher levels of maternal control than boys, and in these homes, white youths reported lower levels of maternal control than did young people of Color; (2) there were no gender differences in either maternal or paternal controls in the less patriarchal homes; (3) there were no gender differences in

youths reporting being emotionally attached to their parents; (4) regardless of the type of home (more or less patriarchal), girls were no more committed than boys to conventional norms; and (5) in more patriarchal homes, girls were more involved than boys in conventional activities (but there was no such gender difference in less patriarchal homes). Another study found, however, that although both maternal and paternal support were effective in reducing delinquency, girls were more affected by maternal support and boys were more affected by paternal support (G. D. Hill & Atkinson, 1988). Similarly, one study found that youths’ conflicts with their fathers, although related to both girls’ and boys’ delinquency, had a greater impact on the boys’ delinquency, whereas youths’ conflicts with their mothers caused more delinquency only among girls (Liu, 2004). A related study reported that girls’ delinquency was more influenced than boys’ by family risk factors (e.g., marital discord, marital instability, and discipline), but the gender stereotypes did not always fit (Dornfeld & Kruttschnitt, 1992). A study with a more detailed measure of parents’ power structure did not find that parents’ relative equality affected the daughters’ or sons’ delinquency rates; rather, these rates were related to the family’s social class and the negative sanctions from the father (Morash & Chesney-Lind, 1991). Another replication found no class-gender variations, yet gender differences were related to race, with fewer gender differences among African American than white youths. The explanation offered for this difference was that “white families may be more ‘patriarchal’ than black families” (G. F. Jensen & Thompson, 1990, p. 1016). However, a more recent test of PCT using only youths from single-mother households found sons commit more delinquency than daughters in both white and Black families, even after controlling for maternal monitoring of the youths (Mack & Leiber, 2005). A large PCT study found parental bond consistently serves to temper the gender gap in crimes and across different classes of young people (Gault-Sherman, 2013). A study that did not set out to test Hagan’s PCT reported findings that are consistent in a general way with this theory. Bottcher’s (1995) interviews with sisters and brothers of incarcerated boys suggest that girls have stronger informal social controls than boys in their families and are more aggressively controlled by social service and law enforcement professionals. She pointed out that in contrast to Hagan’s theory, both the girls and the boys in her study reported that the increased familial control of girls is due to the effort to

monitor the girls’ (and not the boys’) sexual activities. She concluded that, for the high-risk youths in her study, the parental control cited by Hagan “is a very limited component of the social control that gender encompasses” (Bottcher, 1995, p. 53). Similarly, a longitudinal study of 1,000 Minnesota youths collected data not only on parents’ employment but also on the youths’ employment under the assumption that boys who are given more freedom to work outside the home are also provided more access to offending (Uggen, 2000). This study reported that fathers’ authority positions in the workplace increased the likelihood of arrests for sons but decreased it for daughters, whereas mothers’ workplace authority increased the arrest likelihood for daughters but decreased it for sons. Additionally, regarding the youths’ own employment in the workforce, having more workplace power and control increased boys’ but decreased girls’ likelihood of arrest (Uggen, 2000). D. Eitle, Eitle, and Niedrist were the first to apply PCT to Indigenous youths, noting its relevance given that Indigenous families have historically been more egalitarian than other racial groups in the United States, particularly prior to colonization (D. Eitle et al., 2014; T. M. Eitle & Eitle, 2015, p. 689). Using National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data, controlling for youths in two-parent families, they found considerable support for PCT among Indigenous youths (D. Eitle et al., 2014), more so than for white youths (T. M. Eitle & Eitle, 2015). Eitle et al. (2014) applied PCT to Indigenous youths for self-reported general, property, and violent delinquency. Findings included that Indigenous girls reported lower mother and father relational controls than Indigenous boys, for which PCT would suggest that their offending should be similar. However, only violent delinquent acts were higher for boys. In boy-only multivariate models, support was found for PCT only for property crimes, and it was far more limited even then. Girl-only models found PCT support: Girls’ affective bond to fathers and being in patriarchal families reduced their likelihood of committing general, property, and violent delinquent behaviors. Having a grandparent living in the home decreased girls’ (but not boys’) proclivity for violent delinquency, which the authors claim is consistent with PCT regarding more (grand)parental control. Father control deterred both boys’ and girls’ property offending (and living in poverty only impacted boys’ property offending). Finally, Eitle et al.’s (2014) comparison with similarly situated white youths found whether a family was patriarchal or egalitarian was never related to girls’ or boys’ general, violent, or property offending; mother relational bonds was a robust predictor

for girls’ and boys’ offending, and a grandparent residing in the home had no impact on any white youths’ self-reported general, property, or violent offending. T. M. Eitle and Eitle (2015) applied PCT to Indigenous youths (with some comparisons to white youths) for substance use. First, among Indigenous youths, gender was a greater predictor of substance use in patriarchal than in egalitarian families (there was little gender gap in substance use in egalitarian families). Second, Indigenous girls raised in egalitarian families reported more alcohol problems than boys in such homes. Third, parental controls suppress (but do not erase) the gender–substance use association. Fourth, and inconsistent with PCT, among these Indigenous youths, fathers’ (and not mothers’) relational control predicted girls’ (and not boys’) substance use—demonstrating the important roles fathers can play in their daughters’ as well as sons’ desistance from crime. Finally, T. M. Eitle and Eitle found support for PCT for alcohol consumption, marijuana consumption, and alcohol problems, for Indigenous but not white youths, suggesting PCT is better suited to explaining the delinquent behavior of Indigenous compared with white youths, at least for substance use. Notably, some politicians, popular media, and researchers have blamed women’s work outside the home as a cause of delinquency. (Also recall K. J. Cook’s [2016] criticism of GTC, linking “ineffective child-rearing” with mothers, particularly poor and/or single mothers [p. 338].) However, careful research in this area finds no link between mothers’ employment and their children’s delinquency (Broidy, 1995; De Coster, 2012; Vander Ven, 2003). De Coster’s (2012) analysis of U.S. data, comparing mothers who work outside the home with stay-at-home mothers, found huge variation within each group regarding their parenting behaviors. Mothers’ employment status was found related to their children’s delinquency when they were incongruent with their ideologies: Mothers who think it is inappropriate for mothers to work, but do work, and mothers who think it is appropriate for mothers to work but do not, are more likely to have delinquent children than mothers whose work status is congruent with their beliefs about whether it is “appropriate” for women to work (De Coster, 2012). A study using an extensive longitudinal data set of youths found the only instances where women’s work could be linked in any fashion to their children’s delinquency was when their work was coercive, they relied on welfare, and the family income was low, suggesting that “more

children will be better off as women gain increased access to educational advancement, job training, and opportunities for stable, well-paying employment” (Vander Ven, 2003, p. 133). Schulze and Bryan’s (2017) intersectional and comprehensive PCT study of both status offenses and total offenses, appropriately and uniquely includes schools as a separate source of power and control in youths’ lives. Their predominantly African American and poor sample was “composed entirely of juvenile offenders … arguably the most vulnerable among the juvenile population who are also subjected to the most systemic control” (p. 73). Whether the young adult was in a single-mother-parent, single-father-parent, or twoparent family was unrelated to being charged with a status offense or “total offenses,” but young adults with “other” guardianship (e.g., foster home, residential care) or homelessness were more at risk of having status offenses. The only exception was when single-parentmother was analyzed by race: In direct contrast to PCT, they found “single-mother-headed household” was a protective factor for girls against being charged with status (but not total) offenses. Family “dysfunction” and high scores on psychological symptoms affected girls and boys the same, increasing their likelihood of both status and overall offenses. Parent/guardian criminality did not impact children’s status or total offenses, while sibling criminality impacted both girls’ and boys’ total offending. Parent employment (at least one working parent) reduced youths’ likelihood of total offenses. Schulze and Bryan (2017) concluded that PCT research must address “systemic processes directly” and “be cognizant of the fact that the modern family structure is dynamic,” lessening “its predictive value to delinquency, especially if examined in isolation from other, known correlates that also operate as patriarchal controls” (p. 92). Finally, Hagan and his colleagues (2004) reported the support for PCT is so strong that “male subcultural delinquents” may be “the social dinosaurs of a passing, more patriarchal era” (p. 659). Yet the reviewed research testing PCT is not very convincing, and the accounts of gender comparisons reported in Chapter 4 do not indicate that male subcultural delinquents are becoming social dinosaurs.

WOMEN’S LIBERATION/EMANCIPATION HYPOTHESIS (WLEH)

We have seen that traditionally, criminological theory showed only a passing interest in explaining the offending and the system’s criminal processing of women and girls. All this changed in 1975, however, with the publication of Adler’s (1975) Sisters in Crime and R. J. Simon’s (1975) Women and Crime. These books, particularly Adler’s, received a great deal of attention regarding their hypothesis that the women’s liberation movement increases the female crime rate. Although similar overall, Adler and Simon differed concerning the types of crime the women’s movement was expected to impact. Adler proposed that the violent crime rate would increase because of women’s liberation. In contrast, Simon proposed that only the property crime rate would increase with women’s liberation. Simon suggested further that women’s violent crime would decrease because women’s frustrations with life would diminish as they gained access to new work and educational opportunities. Also called the emancipation hypothesis, this approach suggests that the feminist movement, although working toward equality for women, increased the female crime rate. Early critics found fault with the women’s liberation/emancipation hypothesis (WLEH): “Circumstantial evidence seems to indict the women’s movement for contributing to an increase in crime” (McCord & Otten, 1983, p. 3). Naffine (1987) summarized some of the troubling assumptions of WLEH: (1) Feminism brings out women’s competitiveness, (2) the women’s movement has opened up structural opportunities to increase places where women can offend, (3) women have fought and won the battle of equality, (4) feminism makes women want to behave like men, and (5) crime itself is inherently masculine. There are obvious problems with these assumptions. Even the most plausible assumption—that feminism has opened up women’s structural opportunities—loses credibility when faced with statistics showing that women have not achieved equality in high-paying and managerial professions (see Chapters 10–12). These assumptions, and WLEH in general, have been soundly criticized not only for the unfounded stance that increasing gender equality increases girls and women’s offending (in stark contrast to strain theories) but also for misusing and manipulating statistics where they were “confirmed” (see, e.g., Crites, 1976; Feinman, 1986; Leonard, 1982; Allison Morris, 1987; Naffine, 1987; Smart, 1976, 1982; Steffensmeier & Streifel, 1992). Notably, a 1983 study using incarcerated women to test WLEH reported these women to be generally “traditional,” “feminine” (not “feminist”), and

“conformist” in terms of sex roles, hardly the hard-core feminists Adler’s (1975) theory predicted (Bunch, Foley, & Urbina, 1983). Analyses of changes in women and girls’ offending in the 1970s and 1980s reported that females’ violent crime rate remained relatively stable (see Feinman, 1986; Steffensmeier, 1980), whereas research on property crimes, particularly larceny and petty property crimes, indicated women’s rates increased during this time (e.g., Box & Hale, 1983, 1984; Chilton & Datesman, 1987; D. A. Smith & Visher, 1980; Steffensmeier & Streifel, 1992). But the increase in women’s property crime rates corresponded with the feminization of poverty, defined as the growing number of women (with and without dependents) living in poverty, which is a better predictor of women’s criminality—and then, of property crimes—than is the strength or weakness of the feminist movement. In fact, the types of crime for which women were increasingly arrested after the women’s movement of the 1970s—prostitution and offenses against the family (such as desertion, neglect, and nonsupport)—are crimes not “altogether compatible with the view of the emancipated female” (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1988). In addition to the feminization of poverty, sentencing changes in the 1970s and 1980s to “get tough on crime” have done more than the feminist movement to increase females’ (and males’) official crime rate reported by the police (Box & Hale, 1984). Furthermore, if the women’s movement has had any negative effect on women’s criminality, it is that women appear to have become more likely to have their behaviors defined as criminal or delinquent by judges and police officers (D. A. Curran, 1984; Allison Morris, 1987). Notably, researchers specifically examining the effect of young women’s adherence to feminist ideals in the 1980s (e.g., regarding women and work and gender roles in the family) found that pro-feminist women and girls were no more likely than their more traditional sisters to self-report using aggression and criminal or delinquent behavior (Figueira-McDonough, 1984; McCord & Otten, 1983). Kruttschnitt’s (1996) careful overview of tests of Adler’s and Simon’s hypotheses concluded that economic marginalization, drug use, and changes in formal social control provide better predictors of female offending than do WLEHs or opportunity theories, but “they have yet to be formally integrated into an explanatory model of female offending or of gender differences in offending” (p. 137). As expected, this hypothesis is rarely tested any more (because it has so little credence).

SUMMARY Historically, most criminology theories have been developed by men and about men and boys’ offending. Even when theories were about “why people obey the law,” the focus was on men and boys. The classical/positivist theories were very biological in nature, fraught with sexism, racism, and classism. The more recent biosocial and evolutionary theories (BSETs) have resumed many of these troubling assumptions and fail to examine structural and societal explanations for criminal behavior. Until the mid-1970s, most theorists made little attempt to account for women and girls’ criminality. Social bond theory (SBT), developed in 1969, once (finally) applied to girls, confirmed social bonds and controls account for some gender differences in offending, indicating that it contributes to understanding girls and women’s offending and to explaining the gender crime gap (addressed more in the next chapter). Powercontrol theory (PCT), developed in the mid-1980s, was also designed to address gender. It has mixed support and makes some sexist assumptions. More recent research addresses rethinking the (assumed negative) role of single mothers and mothering, but also fathering, and parenting, in general, and through less sexist, racist, and classist lenses (e.g., Schulze & Bryan, 2017). In 1975, for the first time, an approach was developed to explain women’s criminal behavior: women’s emancipation/liberation hypothesis (WLEH) (Adler, 1975; R. J. Simon, 1975). Unfortunately, this hypothesis was based on erroneous and sexist and class assumptions about the feminist movement and statistics, and the interpretations of data were often misleading. Given that studies repeatedly find no support for WLEH, and most of its premises contradict other theories, it is not clear why it is still tested, even if only occasionally. Notably, traditional strain theory never included abuse or other trauma victimizations, and general strain theory (GST) has rarely included these when they would seem to be such clear strains. Similarly, child abuse is rarely included in SBT tests, where parents’ abuse would seemingly be related to children’s attachment to their parents. The next chapter addresses some of the theories that have been explicitly designed to include girls and women and/or trauma and adverse life events, as well as some other theories that are more recent and offer potential for studying girls and women, gender, and the risks of offending.

3 THEORIES PART II: CRITICAL, LABELING, CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, LIFE COURSE, PATHWAYS, AND MASCULINITY THEORIES Early scholars focused almost exclusively on men as criminals and as inmates, and it was—and in some cases remains—taken for granted that men and boys were the objects of study in most generalizable criminological research. Yet this empirical pattern alone has rarely been interrogated. Problems of gendered and racialized patterns of criminal offending have been apparent from the start of the discipline but, until the emergence of feminist criminology, were rarely analyzed as conceptual subjects in and of themselves. —K. J. Cook (2016, p. 336)

The previous chapter was an overview of the classical positivist criminological theories as well as some of the more recent mainstream, and largely sexist and “malestream,” theories. Although social learning theory (SLT), general strain theory (GST), and some of social control theories (SCTs) have made some contributions to a gendered understanding of crime (when including appropriate variables and running models separately by gender), the theories presented in this chapter are more consistent with feminist approaches, even if they have not always been applied so. Except for critical and labeling theories, the theories presented in this chapter are all relatively new, mostly traced back to the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Although research consistent with pathways theory can be seen in research dating back to 1977, this approach was not theorized or labeled as a theory/perspective until the 1992 publication of Daly’s classic article “Women’s Pathways to Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Lawbreaking and Problems of Representation.”

It is vital to notice the overall omitting or avoidance of trauma and abuse variables historically, and to some extent, currently, in criminology theories and theory testing. This might be due to both theorists’ and policy-makers’ hesitancy “to portray male adult offenders as victims during any stage of the life course” (Topitzes, Mersky, & Reynolds, 2011, p. 503), despite Widom’s work dating back to the 1980s documenting the impact of child abuse and neglect on both (traditionally defined) genders’ subsequent offending. This chapter starts with critical theories, followed by labeling, cycle of violence, life course, and pathways theories. Masculinity theory is the final theory presented.

AGENCY AND RESILIENCY The theories presented in this chapter either directly include victimization or have more regularly included victimization over time. Feminists often struggle with balancing sexism and misogyny—and how they intersect with racism, poverty, heterosexism, and other types of oppressions—in addressing girls and women’s agency (selfdetermination). On one hand, it is important to document and discuss both offending and victimization, together and separately, and in terms of structural, legal, and cultural barriers to equality (which themselves can be victimizations, such as gross travesties of justice within the criminal legal system). On the other hand, it is inconsistent with feminism to portray girls and women as having no agency or resiliency, even when they are marginalized in numerous serious and intersecting ways (e.g., see Maher, 1997, p. 1). Documenting the serious denial of individual and systemic agency many victims and/or offenders face, and how this seriously limits their choices, including in some cases, for survival, must be balanced with not portraying girls and women as weak and lacking in courage. Although it is imperative to document women and girls’ offending “within a constrained, gendered, raced, and classed environment” (Schwartz & Steffensmeier, 2017, p. 131), it is also vital to include women and girls’ strengths and resiliency. Sterk (1999) captures this dichotomy of agency in her study of crackaddicted women: “On the one hand, they saw themselves as victims, but on the other they recognized themselves as important, independent actors” (p. 173). Garcia-Hallett’s (2019) study of maternal identity and offending reveals “how mothering under

neoliberalism may introduce circumstances where some women feel pressured to offend in the name of their maternal role—protecting and providing for their children” (p. 235). Some women’s initial offending is done to provide for their children. J. Miller’s (2001) book One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Gender identifies girls’ paths to gang membership and both the offending and victimization included gang activities. But Miller also describes the empowerment and equality that gang membership provides these girls in gangs. Miller notes not only how gang membership increases the risk of victimization but also how the allure of gangs partially comes from an escape from sexual assaults and other abuses that are often perpetrated by their family members. Feminist scholars and advocates must constantly address how power is taken away but also honor the resiliency of survivors, much as Indigenous and African American scholars have done in addressing the fighting back and resiliency from the victims of the most shameful parts of U.S. history: the extreme horrors of genocide, stealing land, and kidnapping and enslaving people (e.g., Du Bois, 1899; Foran, Snarr, Heyman, & Slep, 2012; Muhammad, 2010). Similarly, in Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson (2015) poignantly documents the power of hope and resiliency among some individuals currently in or recently released from U.S. prisons under the appalling prison conditions, whose incarcerations resulted from outrageously biased, unfair, and sometimes illegal, police and/or court decisions. In their study of women sex workers’ agency, aptly titled, “First and Foremost They’re Survivors,” Shdaimah and Leon (2015) powerfully conclude, “Prostitute women exhibit creative, resilient, and rational conduct. Rejecting victimhood, our respondents demonstrate moral reasoning, make choices, work systems that dominate their lives, and assert power and control when they can. Their resistance, while serving a symbolic function, also expresses their system savvy and self-advocacy that produce measurable benefits” (p. 326).

CRITICAL THEORIES Critical Criminology Theory (CCT)

In the late 1960s in the United States and early 1970s in Britain, a more radical perspective entered the ring of criminological theories (Naffine, 1996). Conflict theory is grounded in Marxism and thus often referred to as Marxist theory or radical theory. Although Karl Marx himself wrote very little about crime, his perspective on class struggle and on social relations under capitalism are the basis for conflict/Marxist/radical and critical criminology theory (CCT). Just as Marx’s focus was on class and the means of production, but not on gender/women or race, we will see that has sadly been the legacy of CCT. Conflict/Marxist/radical and critical criminology (CCT) theories typically embrace a more structural, political, and economical perspective than the theories discussed in Chapter 2, proposing that rather than looking at the offender, we should focus on society, particularly law-makers and powerful interests. This approach assumes that laws are biased, reflecting the needs of the upper class, and thus enforcement of these laws is inevitably unjust. To these conflict/Marxist/radical and critical criminologists, then, crime itself is politicized and defined by the powerful elite. Therefore, the key to solving the crime problem is changing the economic system (Bonger, 1969), which is highly political. The conflict/Marxist/radical perspective on criminology was crystallized and even renamed the “new criminology” and “critical criminology” with the publication of I. Taylor, Walton, and Young’s books of the same names (The New Criminology [1973] and Critical Criminology [1975]). Other criminologists have also helped develop this perspective (e.g., D. M. Gordon, 1973; Platt, 1974; Quinney, 1972, 1975; Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1970). The new criminologists viewed society as two-tiered—with harmful wealthy capitalist men beyond the arm of the law, and working-class men offenders who should be regarded as “resistors” to the “real criminals” (the capitalists) and thus should be viewed with appreciation and sympathy (Naffine, 1996, p. 44). Common criticisms of the new criminology were that it was overly simplistic and generalizing (Leonard, 1982, p. 161). The new criminologists were also roundly criticized by feminist criminologists for ignoring women, girls, and gender (Heidensohn, 1985; Howe, 1994; D. Klein & Kress, 1976; Leonard, 1982; Allison Morris, 1987; Naffine, 1996). One example was their failure to recognize that economic factors alone cannot explain gender differences in criminal behavior; they require a political analysis as well (Leonard, 1982). In a refreshing departure from the numerous

accounts of critical criminology that fail to address the “woman question,” in 1976 Klein and Kress (1976) wrote an insightful article discussing how the status of women and sexist oppression were relevant to radical criminology. Other Marxist-feminist accounts state that because sexism is directly tied to capitalism, sexism governs the economic, social, and legal aspects of our lives (J. W. Messerschmidt, 1988; Rafter & Natalizia, 1981). Most feminist criticisms of CCT are from the view of offending; however, Naffine (1996) points out that the new criminologists either outright overlooked rape and intimate partner abuse or documented them uncritically (p. 45). A book on radical criminology published in the late 1989 devoted only five pages to women and gender (M. J. Lynch & Groves, 1989). Both CCT and cultural theory offer great collaboration with feminist theory, and it is hoped that CCT and cultural criminology theory will do this more regularly (see K. J. Cook, 2016). On an encouraging note, some more recent evaluations state that radical criminologists are finally “getting it” regarding their history of ignoring gender and feminism (see Britton, 2000; DeKeseredy, 1996). Chapter 14 includes transformative critical feminist criminology as proposed by leading feminist criminology scholars Chesney-Lind and Morash (2013).

Critical Race Theory (CRT) In the 1970s, critical legal studies (CritLS) emerged from a radical group of predominantly white male legal academics (see Crenshaw, 2002; Wing, 1997). The CritLS scholars questioned the objectivity of laws that they claimed for centuries had inherently oppressed the poor, people of Color, and women, either outright or in their applications (Crenshaw, 2002; Seiler, 2003). Some people of Color and women who were scholars in the radical left worried that however well-meaning and radical the CritLS component was, they seemed unable to promote an analysis beyond the white male elite lens through which they viewed the world (Wing, 1997, p. 2). These scholars, led by Derrick Bell, started critical race theory (CRT) in the mid-1970s, and it fully emerged in the late 1980s (Wing, 1997). Delgado and Stefancic (2017) define CRT as a “progressive legal movement to transform the relationship among race, racism, and power” (p. 171). Bell’s (1973) book, Race, Racism, and American Law, is an early treatise of the many ways U.S. law discriminates by race. The

originators of CRT believed that the civil rights movement had stalled and that the old approaches of marches, amicus briefs, and litigation were increasingly ineffective in combating de facto discrimination (Bell, 1973, p. 2). Instead they emphasized that recognizing and accounting for white privilege and power are core to understanding racism in the systemic discrimination and civil rights violations of people of Color (see Bell, 1973; Crenshaw, 2002; Seiler, 2003). CRT identifies three beliefs accepted by mainstream society as myths: (1) Ignoring race eliminates racism; (2) racism is caused by individuals, not systems; and (3) racism can be fought alone, without recognizing sexism, classism, homophobia, and so on (Valdes, Culp, & Harris, 2002). Central to CRT is the assumption/problem that race is completely embedded in U.S. laws and policies. It is worth noting that student activism around increasing diversity in higher education in the 1960s through 1990s has been credited with the development of CRT (Cho & Westley, 1999), and CRT continues to develop (Valdes et al., 2002). Although there are limited applications of CRT to studies of crime, a recent one addresses the idea of schools representing relatively safe havens for youths until the 1990s. Watts and Erevelles (2004) point out that violence in urban schools in areas with social exploitation and high unemployment was ignored until violence hit the suburban and rural white schools in high-profile shootings (e.g., Marjorie Douglas High School in Florida and Columbine High School in Colorado). Today, according to the authors, many public schools serve simply as institutions of social control, and school violence is not a result of a few “violent” students but rather institutions that base norms on Whiteness and disability status. They conclude that whether the violent students are inner-city African Americans and Latinx or middle- and upper-class white boys, “their failure to measure up (to the rigid social norms including those of masculinity) ensured their isolation and provoked them to commit horrifying acts” (Watts & Erevelles, 2004, p. 293). Thus, the answer to school violence is not to get rid of the “rotten kids” but to provide institutions that are not oppressing the students.

Critical Race Feminist Theory (CRFT) Chapter 1 addressed how many people associate “feminism” with white women and how much of the earlier work written by white feminists (and sadly, sometimes still) assumed a monolithic

experience of “womanhood” without recognizing the diversity of women’s experiences based on their race/ethnicity, class, sexual identification, nationality, religion, immigrant status, and so on (see hooks, 2000). Similar to the centuries of documentation of white women’s struggles and activism to fight sexism (as well as other forms of oppression), women of Color have a long history of advocating against sexism, as well as other forms of oppression, particularly racism. Records of African American women’s resistance to slavery authenticate the many ways they resisted other forms of racism, sexism, and numerous types of abuse and oppression beginning in the 1600s (see Crafts & Gates, 2002; A. Y. Davis, 1981; Guy-Sheftall, 1995; D. K. King, 1988; Shaw, 1997). Feminist jurisprudence was developed by white feminist legal scholars in the 1970s to address ways that law-making and enforcement work to the detriment of women and girls. CRT emerged as a response to the view by some left-wing academic women and scholars of Color that CritLS was limited by its framing by largely elite, white, male left-wing academics. In turn, the emergence of critical race feminism (CRF) was a response, largely by U.S. women of Color law professors in the early 1990s and since then, indicating concern that feminist jurisprudence was dominated by white female law professors and CRT was dominated by African American male scholars. Just as the designers of CRT accused the CritLS theorists of limitations using the (white) lens through which they see the world, CRF scholars suggest that CRT and feminist jurisprudence are not appropriately equipped to address women of Color’s double and multiple marginality when racism and sexism are combined with each other and/or additional forms of oppression (e.g., classism, homophobia, etc.). Table 3.1 provides the tenets of CRF as described by Evans-Winter and Esposito (2010, p. 20) and Delgado and Stefancic’s (2017, p. 96) examples of CRF aims in assessing and changing laws and society. Significantly, numerous scholars have used a CRFT lens to study African American girls’ school discipline as part of the school-to-prison pipeline, and all of these studies confirmed the theory (e.g., Annamma et al., 2019; Evans-Winters & Esposito, 2010; Evans-Winters, Hines, Moore, & Jones, 2018). Table 3.1 ● Critical Race Feminism

Evans-Winters and Esposito’s Tenets

A theoretical lens and movement that purports that women of Color’s experiences, thus perspectives, are different from the experiences of men of Color and those of white women Focuses on the lives of women of Color who face multiple forms of discrimination as a result of the intersections of race, class, and gender within a system of white male patriarchy and racist oppression Asserts the multiple identities and consciousness of women of Color (i.e., anti-essentialist) Multidisciplinary in scope and breadth For theories and practices that simultaneously study and combat gender and racial oppression Delgado and Stefancic’s Topics Examined Relationships between women and men of Color Sterilization of women of Color The intersectional impacts of laws and policies such as those on welfare, family, and child support The intersectional impact of the “reasonable man” premise in courts

Sources: “Tenets” adapted from Evans-Winters, V., & Esposito, J. (2010). Other people’s daughters: Critical race feminism and Black girls’ education. Journal of Educational Foundations, 24(1/2), 11–24. “Topics Examined” adapted from Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: New York University Press.

Potter’s (2008) application of CRF to explain the intimate partner abuse of African American women confirmed the utility of relying on CRF as a framework for understanding these victims and the important ways that racism and sexism intersect with each other, as well as with classism and sexuality, within the context of intimate partner abuse. Evans-Winter and her colleagues applied CRF in their analysis of the hypercriminalization and policing that Black girls experience even following President Obama’s 2015 enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). They criticize ESSA for failing to address the intersections of marginalizations and how “race does not operate as a silo—race, gender, social class, and other parts of our identity are layered and form a mosaic” (Evans-Winters et al., 2018, p. 1). In her powerful book Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools, M. W. Morris (2015) documents how Black girls are pushed out of school (as opposed to dropping out) in addition to being criminalized. J. Flores (2016) documents similar findings about Latina high school girls in the book Caught up: Girls, Surveillance, and Wraparound Incarceration. Although Uggen and Thompson’s (2013) study of the impact of Bill Clinton’s 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)—a federal “bundle” welfare reform act—does not mention CRF, it strongly supports this theory. More specifically, in addition to other highly negative impacts, PRWORA’s restriction on public assistance or people with felony drug convictions resulted in a steep increase in women’s property and violent arrests, particularly the latter (Uggen & Thompson, 2013).

LABELING THEORY (LT) Tannenbaum is credited by some with the origins of labeling theory (LT) in his 1938 delinquency book, Crime and the Community, in which he argued that assigning criminal labels to people increases the chances that they will become their labels (see McGrath, 2014; Willis, 2018). LT is concerned with the process by which deviant labels are both applied and received. Specifically, LT speculates

about how people are “marked” (or labeled) as deviant, delinquent, or criminal and what the effect of the label is on their future behavior. Thus, LT has two tenets: (1) Some people are more likely to be labeled criminal because of their race, sex, class, and/or other factors; and (2) once people are labeled delinquent or criminal, they may accept or resign themselves to this label and continue in crime because of the labeling. In addition to the irony that labeling people “juvenile delinquents” or “offenders” may make offending worse, there is also the problem of whether there is gender, race, class, and other types of discrimination involved in who is labeled. The fairly recent #BlackLivesMatter movement has certainly stressed which citizens the police are most likely to use excessive force with, including lethal force (see Boyd & Dumpson, 2019). But given that labeling can result in an “offender” identity and continued offending, the ramifications of labeling become even more dire. Stated alternatively, official intervention (e.g., by the police) is disproportionately practiced among disadvantaged youths, thus more negatively impacting their education, employment, and criminal behavior (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). Although many scholars advanced the concepts behind LT (see Erikson, 1962; Kitsuse, 1962; Lemert, 1951), the most famous advancement is by Howard Becker (1963) in his research on jazz musicians, in the book Outsiders. Becker’s work is admirable in many ways, particularly his efforts “to find out how it worked by seeing it from the vantage point of those who lived there, from the viewpoint of those labeled deviant” (Naffine, 1996, p. 40). He collected his data through participant observation, playing the piano professionally with his subjects. Consistent with the theorists discussed thus far, however, Becker devoted his analysis almost exclusively to male musicians. When Becker wrote about women, it was most frequently as the wives of the men, and in these instances, these women are portrayed as boring, laughable, and “square.” Thus, whereas Becker used innovative and in-depth methods to get to know and understand the male musicians, his approach to studying the women “remained highly orthodox” (Naffine, 1996, p. 41). The women are seen only through the lens of the male musicians and are depicted as “nags” who threaten the livelihood of the band by trying to convince their husbands to get “real” jobs. When women musicians are given any attention in Becker’s analysis, it is only as sex objects, not as legitimate musicians—an all-too-familiar approach to studying nonconforming and criminal women (Naffine, 1987). In the work of Becker and many others,

conforming women are portrayed as boring and spineless, whereas criminal men are seen as creative and exciting.

Advancing LT Kenney (2002) advocates for expanding LT to include victimization of major traumas. He notes, and others have found, the many ways that familial, social, and systemic responses to victims of significant trauma often silence them and even label them as deviant (Kenney, 2002; Wortman & Lehman, 1983; Young, 1991). To this end, a study of women abused by their partners found that their help-seeking decisions are often negatively influenced by past abuse, including childhood victimizations, making it difficult to disclose or trust (Burgess-Proctor, 2011). Indeed, Schur (1984) suggests that women “do not really have to engage in specific acts to be defined and responded to as deviant. Physical appearance—and in a sense perhaps even the mere condition of ‘being’ a woman—can lead to stigmatization” (p. 190). Frigon (1995) traces the long history of punishing females (and to some degree, males) for not conforming to their “appropriate” gender roles, including the execution of hundreds of thousands of lesbians and thousands of gay men for heresy in 15th- and 16th-century France during the Roman Catholic Inquisition and the long history of executing women charged as “witches.” Thus, a distinction for the criminal woman appears to fall into “mad” (mentally ill, including the rejection of culturally prescribed gender roles) and “bad” (just pure evil) (Frigon, 1995). Words such as hysterical (notably derived from the Greek word for uterus and tied to being female) and promiscuous are rarely used to describe boys and men (i.e., restricted for labeling women and girls). This is consistent not only with Wodda and Panfil’s (2018) sex-negativity that is also sexist but has had disastrous ramifications for girls and women in the criminal legal system (described in more detail in Chapter 6). One area that is related to LT is a growing body of incarcerated people and those advocating for them, addressing how those incarcerated with terms like “offenders” suggest that this is their defining characteristic, and moreover, they are inherently lawbreakers. Consistent with LT, such a practice is criticized for resulting in the labeled individuals’ inability to view themselves as law-abiding, and thus, their ability to become law-abiding (see Willis, 2018).

A key question in the application of LT to girls and women is determining whether there are gender differences in how offenders are labeled. For example, the possibility that girls are less likely than boys to be labeled or viewed as delinquent might help explain their lower arrest rates. On the other hand, perhaps before the second wave of the women’s movement, women were more protected by chivalry (addressed in greater detail in Chapter 6), and the growing incarceration rate of women in the United States reflects a harsher labeling of girls and women since this time (Leonard, 1982). Still another possibility is that women and girls are labeled more harshly for some crimes, while men and boys are discriminated against for others. The second key question in applying LT to girls and women is the second tenet of LT. Part of this process is the finding that women and girls are more likely (than men and boys) to take on feelings of shame when they or others identify them as deviant or “offenders” (T. A. Hayes, 2000).

Gender Applications of LT Limited criminology research has addressed whether “labeling or the consequences of being labeled” are gendered (Hassett-Walker et al., 2017). Lee, Tajima, Herrenkohl, and Hong’s (2017) excellent review of LT studies and gender notes that like most criminology, “there is limited attention to gender” (p. 99). Many LT studies have used all male samples, and LT studies that include girls rarely test for gender differences, instead using gender as a control variable. Lee and her colleagues’ careful review of LT research report inconsistent findings on whether delinquent labels are gendered, and if so, who is more impacted. Regarding the first tenet of LT, two studies using data from the large U.S. National Youth Survey found that girls are less likely to be labeled as delinquent/criminal than are boys. First, Menard and Pollock’s (2014) analysis of youth falsely accused of criminal behavior found “false accusations are not randomly distributed in the population, but fall disproportionately on the usual suspects, boys, youth of color, lower SES, and academically disadvantaged youth” (p. 389). Second, De Coster and Lutz’s (2018) analysis of these data found that girls are less likely than boys “to be labeled as troublemakers because delinquency and rule violation are consistent with cultural definitions of masculinity but are the antithesis of femininity” (p. 628).

Some LT research specifically examining gender indicates that being labeled an offender has a more serious impact on the second tenet of LT (becoming or continuing as an offender). Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, and Bontrager’s (2007) large adult felony Florida court study found that regardless of their sentences, men reoffended more than women, but of those found guilty, women were more likely to reoffend. They conclude that the labeling has a greater impact on women than men. Conversely, Lee and colleagues’ (2017) study of Pennsylvania youth found few gender differences regarding the process or effects of labeling on subsequent adult criminal behavior (possibly due to their small sample size). However, they did find higher childhood aggression was related to higher adolescent delinquency for boys but not girls, that “boys from higher SES families were more likely to develop” delinquent attitudes (emphasis added; p. 106); in addition, the models indicated the processing of labeling was related to adult criminality for both girls and boys, but it was stronger for boys. Alarid and Vega’s (2010) study conducted solely on convicted incarcerated women found overall support for LT, with some nuances. Prior convictions and drug use and sale involvement, but not property crime involvement, increased the likelihood these women defined themselves as “criminals.” The authors reasonably speculated that women who are also mothers (many incarcerated women) may feel less responsible for their crimes, and thus less deserving of the “criminal” identifier, if their crimes are property offenses to support their children. As expected, this study also found women with their first felony conviction were less likely than those with more felony convictions to view themselves as criminals, and many of these self-labeling criminal women had viewed themselves as criminals since they were 17. Notably, the “master identity role that was more important than any other label or role [to these women] … was a familial role as a mother (if she had children) or as a wife, sister or daughter [if she was not a mother]” (p. 721).

DEVELOPMENTAL AND ADVERSE LIFE EVENTS THEORIES The cycle of violence theory (CVT) and the pathways theory (PT) are similar in that both have a strong focus on victimizations and other adverse life events as risk factors for offending. Traditionally, and

sometimes still, life course theory (LCT) research, although asking detailed accounts of childhood events, often fails to include abuse and other trauma victimizations.1 Table 3.2 summarizes and compares the traditional tenets of each of these theories (CVT, LCT, and PT). Significantly, they are changing and improving in their applications over time and are more frequently being combined, which will be presented in Chapter 13. 1

Many pathways and life course publications refer to these approaches as perspectives instead of theories. Given that substantial scholarship has confirmed these perspectives, I refer to them as theories. Table 3.2 ● Comparing Traditional Cycle of Violence, Pathways, and Life Course Theories

Cycle of Violence (CVT)

Pathways Theory (PT)

Life Course Theory (LCT)

Prospective

Retrospective

Prospective

Conducted on people Conducted on with official childhood incarcerated physical abuse, sexual girls/women abuse, and/or neglect, matched with people offending reports

Conducted on community (nonincarcerated) boys/men (some of whom become offenders)

Started by Widom; Primarily by feminist most replications by scholars Widom and colleagues

Primarily by mainstream criminologists

Cycle of Violence (CVT)

Pathways Theory (PT)

Life Course Theory (LCT)

Always includes both girls and boys for original sample and then followed through adulthood

Focuses more on adverse life events, trauma, abuse

Examines behavioral patterns, development, life transitions

Advantages

Advantages

Advantages

Includes people who do not have official childhood abuse and neglect victimizations and people without official offending Better for temporal order of events (victimization vs. offending) Not on a single gender

Least expensive Adults (and adolescents) reporting on past are probably more likely to disclose child abuses Often includes both selfreported and official offending

Includes people who do not offend Better for temporal order of events (victimization vs. offending) Often includes both selfreported and official offending

Cycle of Violence (CVT)

Pathways Theory (PT)

Life Course Theory (LCT)

Disadvantages

Disadvantages

Disadvantages

Most childhood victimizations are not officially reported (not officially documented) Most offending is undetected (not officially documented)

No comparison with nonincarcerated (cannot test resilience) People can misremember timing of even most important life events, so difficult for temporal ordering

Often omits childhood abuses and other traumatic events Most expensive

Note: This chart summarizes three theories that evolved around the same time, primarily as they started. Fortunately, there have been improvements; for example, LCT now usually includes girls/women and increasingly included childhood abuse, and CVT is more likely to include self-report offending behaviors. Chapter 14 addresses the way these theories are more commonly combined or paired in more recent research.

Data collected consistent with LCT is prospective, collecting data over time on the same individuals. CVT is also considered prospective, typically using official data on the same individuals over time, such as childhood victimizations reported to hospitals and the police and adolescent and adult arrest records, although increasingly, CVT studies also use self-report data (e.g., A. A. Fagan, 2005; Wright & Fagan, 2013). Conversely, PT research is retrospective, asking individuals about their past experiences at one point in time. The advantages of prospective data collection are improved accuracy of the temporal ordering of life events (e.g., “Did the child run away or start using drugs before or after being sexually abuse?”) and the inclusion of people who will not offend so that

resiliency can be studied and better understood (e.g., “What was related to not offending?”). PT is far less expensive than CVT or LCT because the participants are surveyed or interviewed at only one point in time about their lives. But PT studies usually are conducted solely on incarcerated offenders, so they offer limited resiliency analysis other than looking at desistance over time (which is still important, but CVT and LCT can do this, as well). An advantage of PT is that incidents of abuse and neglect will likely be more accurate and frequently reported than with LCT or CVT. In LCT, children who are asked about these incidents may feel unsafe or uncomfortable reporting them to a researcher, and adults (e.g., parents, guardians, teachers) who are asked about children’s victimizations may not know about them or may even be the perpetrators of them. PT data on child maltreatment is likely more accurate than CVT data, which has historically relied on official reports (and most child abuse is not officially reported). Of course, whether prospective or retrospective, a survivor of trauma can also completely repress such events (even officially reported ones), so they may never be known (unless there is official documentation).

Cycle of Violence Theory (CVT) Widom developed CVT in 1989 to assess the “scholarly claims that abused children become abusers, and victims of violence become violent victimizers” (Widom, 1989b, p. 355). Her prospective data included 908 abused/neglected youths (youths for which there was a court-validated physical, sexual, and/or neglect victimization before age 12) with 667 controls (youths with none of these victimizations prior to age 12, matched by gender, age, race, and hospital of birth) and their official juvenile and adult arrests. As expected with CVT, compared to controls, abused/neglected youths had “more arrests as a juvenile (26 vs. 17%), more arrests as an adult (29 vs. 21%), and more arrests for any violent offense (11 vs. 8%)” (Widom (1989b, p. 244). Widom (1989a, 1989b) found the relationship between abuse/neglect was gendered, in that abused/neglected boys were even more likely than abused/neglected girls to become adult criminals and to become violent criminals. Although abused/neglected boys were no more likely than the control boys to be arrested for violent offenses as juveniles, they were more likely to have adult arrests, while abused/neglected girls were no more likely than control girls to have adult violent offense arrests, “but there was

a trend toward increased violence [arrests] as juveniles” (Rivera & Widom, 1990, p. 24). Widom (1995) found that although childhood sexual abuse victimization placed an individual at increased risk of future arrests, these childhood abuse survivors were no more likely to be arrested later in life than were the individuals who experienced no (officially reported) sexual abuse but experienced (officially reported) physical abuse and/or neglect. However, “sexual abuse plus” victims (i.e., those who experienced sexual abuse plus physical abuse and/or neglect as a child) were at the greatest risk of being arrested for running away. Moreover, victims of childhood sexual abuse were far more likely to be arrested for prostitution than their counterparts who were not sexually abused. (However, arrests for running away did not significantly predispose youths to prostitution arrests.) Analyses of the individual effects of three types of maltreatment showed that “any sexual abuse” had the greatest impact on the likelihood of being arrested for prostitution, and “any nonsexual physical abuse” had the greatest impact on the likelihood of being arrested for rape or sodomy. Unfortunately, these statistics lump females and males together, so we do not know how these dynamics may vary by gender. Updating the data, Widom and Maxfield (2001) found abused or neglected girls were 74% more likely than nonabused/non-neglected girls to be arrested for property, alcohol, drug and misdemeanor crimes, and over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes. Widom’s contributions are huge, but it is important to remember that she relied on court-documented cases of child abuse and neglect; thus, her studies do not include the many cases that do not reach the courts and likely disproportionately reflect the most extreme child abuse cases (Widom, 1995). Additionally, River and Widom (1990, p. 25) found that childhood abuse/neglect significantly increased the likelihood of Black but not white youths’ adult violent arrests, but relying on arrests does not take into account the differential (racist) processing of Black compared to white individuals (see Chapter 6). Alternatively, two extensive tests of CVT, using longitudinal data selfreport (not official) victimization and offending data, and controlling for many variables, found that among youths surviving childhood physical abuse, boys/men are still more likely than girls/women to subsequently commit violence (A. A. Fagan, 2005; Wright & Fagan, 2013). Another prospective study consistent with CVT (but like Widom, using official victimization and offending data) included all

cases of girl victims of child sexual abuse who went to an emergency room in the 1970s in a major northeastern city, matched them with girls with no such histories, and then compared their offense histories (Siegel & Williams, 2003). Consistent with PT, those sexually abused as girls were more likely to be arrested for running away (oddly, though, this was more often for cases where the girl was sexually abused by a stranger than by a family member), drug offenses, property offenses, and prostitution (Siegel & Williams, 2003). Widom, Fisher, Nagin, and Piquero’s (2018) test of CVT followed Widom’s original sample into their 50s, providing a longer-range impact analysis of childhood abuse and neglect. They found that childhood maltreatments and being male increased the likelihood of offending even into the individuals’ 50s. Distinguishing between nonoffenders, low-level chronic offenders, and mid-level chronic offenders, they found maltreated females were far more prevalent among the mid-level chronic offenders than among the low-level chronic offenders (and, of course, among the non-offender group), such that abuse/neglect increased both the longevity and frequency of offending among women (p. 841). Importantly, they also found that increased women’s desistance from offending (relative to men) may be due to their higher rates of death—not actual desistance— stressing the need for research addressing the effect of child maltreatment on mortality and how it may be gendered.

Life Course Theory (LCT) Sampson and Laub’s (1993) construction of LCT drew significantly from Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory (SCT), Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime (GTC), and C. Taylor’s (2001) self-control theory. LCT theorizes that various life events, particularly those during childhood and adolescence, affect one’s risk of offending behavior. Thus, various developmental stages are “age specific,” making offending behavior associated with age (see Loeber, 1996). Indeed, adolescence is identified as a particularly atrisk time given the angst of puberty, the stress of schools (including changing schools), and peer pressure. In this sense, crime is viewed as a network of various causal factors. One aspect of LCT is that independent variables become dependent variables over time. For example, delinquency decreases one’s

chance of doing well in school, which in turn becomes a predictor for (re)turning to crime. Some of the key variables assessed in much of the life course research include antisocial behavior, intelligence, and income levels, as well as general criminal, delinquent, and deviant behaviors. Thus, a focus of some life course research is to assess whether antisocial behavior is continuous over an individual’s life (“life course persistent”) or whether there are periods of antisocial behaviors, usually limited to adolescence (“adolescence limited”) (Moffitt, 1993). The life course approach, then, examines “pathways through the age-differentiated life span,” acknowledging different life stages, turning points, and transitions in individuals’ lives (Elder, 1985). Therefore, this LCT research is longitudinal in nature (collecting data about individuals’ lives over time). (Remember to refer to Table 3.2 for a summary and comparison of CVT, LCT, and PT). LCT, then, is a developmental perspective, focusing on individuals’ behavioral changes from birth until death, the “social development over the full life course; specifically, developmental processes from childhood and adolescence through adulthood” (Laub & Lauritsen, 1993, p. 236). Over the course of most individuals’ lives, the formal and informal social controls vary, particularly the informal controls such as the family, school, and work, and these changes are largely age specific (Laub & Lauritsen, 1993). That is, most children do not have jobs, so we cannot examine that control for them, but their schools and parents typically have less control over them as they age, while they are usually increasingly influenced by their peers. In their work with the LCT model, Sampson and Laub (1990) identify two hypotheses: (1) Childhood antisocial behaviors predict problems in adult development, and (2) social bonds to work and family in adulthood explain changes in crime and development over the life span. They also identify two central concepts to the LCT: trajectories and transitions. Trajectories have to do with life’s “pathways” or development lines over the life span, including a person’s work life, marriage, parenthood, self-esteem, and criminal behavior. Transitions, on the other hand, are “specific life events that are embedded in trajectories and evolve over shorter time spans (e.g., first job or first marriage)” (p. 610). Sampson and Laub view one’s social bonds in adulthood as potentially modifying events on the trajectory to criminal behavior. That is, stable and supportive social bonds (through attachment to a spouse, job stability, and commitment to occupational goals) in adulthood may ameliorate

childhood experiences that might otherwise set one on the path to crime.

The Focus on Boys and Young Men LCT research conducted on boys and men has generally found considerable support. Although LCT would seem ideal to study offending and resiliency to offending in everyone’s lives, including the potential to better understand how this is gendered, traditionally, LCT research focused on boys (including as they became men) (De Li, 1999; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Loeber, 1996; Moffitt, 1990, 1993; Nagin, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995; A. R. Piquero, Brame, Mazerolle, & Haapanen, 2002; A. R. Piquero, MacDonald, & Parker, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993; Shover & Thompson, 1992; Stattin & Magnusson, 1991; Tremblay et al., 1992). Moreover, like GST, LCT tests rarely include maltreatment and other trauma variables, which are seemingly obvious strains (GST) and life events (LCT) (e.g., A. R. Piquero & Mazerolle, 2000). In some sense, this is “excusable” given that the researchers are dealing with existing longitudinal data sets that began data collection in times when there was significantly less interest in females and gender and when the prevalence of child abuse, especially the sexual abuse of boys, was unknown. On the other hand, it is somewhat remarkable how infrequently these LCT (and GST) studies ignored or glossed over both leaving girls out and/or not accounting for childhood abuse and other traumas. One of the rare earlier LCT studies that included girls (and boys) barely mentioned or reported on gender, and although it collected detailed information on sexual activity, it failed to account for whether it was consensual (Olds, Henderson, Cole, & Eckenrode, 1998). Similarly, a 2000 edited book, Life-Course Criminology: Contemporary and Classic Readings (A. R. Piquero & Mazerolle, 2000), includes many of the studies reviewed in this section. Unfortunately, throughout the entire book, gender, abuse, and trauma—seemingly important distinctions in early development, life experiences, and subsequent offending—are rarely mentioned. Farrington (1992) drew on three large longitudinal British data sets, at least one of which included girls (as well as boys). Unfortunately, Farrington barely addressed any findings about gender or

girls/women. Another LCT study provided no empirical data but stressed the need for comparative studies across countries or even allowing for various structural locations within a country (including the United States) as important “next steps” for LCT (Laub & Lauritsen, 1993). Unfortunately, the authors do not mention gender and appear to be interested in race and class only as “structural location” variables. Another seeming attempt to include gender in LCT is Loeber and Hay’s (1997) lengthy article promising information on gender differences, titled “Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence From Childhood to Early Adulthood.” Remarkably, this article scarcely touches on social learning or the many ways that boys’ aggression is tolerated or even encouraged whereas girls’ aggression is punished. Nor do the authors address the gendered nature of childhood abuses and, therefore, how this influences development. Instead, we learn that “some degree of aggression is age-normative, at least in boys” (p. 373), and “it seems probable that girls during the preschool period outgrow aggression more speedily than boys” (p. 388). There is no indication why this is probable, and other studies suggest that girls do not “outgrow” aggression so much as their aggression is disproportionately punished compared with boys, and this is most profound for Black and Brown girls (Annamma et al., 2019; Evans-Winters & Esposito, 2010; Evans-Winters et al., 2018; J. Flores, 2016; Gion, McIntosh, & Smolkowski, 2018; Lopez, 2017; M. W. Morris, 2015; Shange, 2019). Finally, Loeber and Hay (1997) are comfortable identifying “gender differences” and “prediction” as the only key words for the article when their tables and figures are composed solely from data on boys. Therefore, although LCT may and now has been meaningfully applied to girls and women, this did not occur regularly until more recently, and there is still significant room for improvement.

Expanding LCT to Girls and Women, Gender Comparisons, and Intimate Relationship Effects An exception to LCT researchers’ failing to adequately account for gender is A. A. Fagan’s (2003) LTC study that examined the shortand long-term effects of self-reported physical (nonsexual) violence perpetrated by family and nonfamily on youths’ subsequent

offending. Both family-perpetrated, and particularly nonfamilyperpetrated, nonsexual violent victimizations increased the likelihood of these youths’ immediate and lasting offending behaviors. Moreover, those youths reporting both family- and nonfamilyperpetrated violent victimization were the most frequent offenders. The only gender difference was that boys reported more of both family and nonfamily (nonsexual) violent victimizations. M. C. Johnson and Menard’s (2012) LCT test focused on those who abstain from delinquent involvement and found the biggest predictor was gender: 11% of females and 2% of males were abstainers. Martino, Ellickson, Klein, & McCaffrey’s (2008) LCT study of physical aggression found that while “girls are more likely than boys to follow a trajectory of consistently low or no physically aggressive behavior,” boys (19%) and girls (15%) were similar in their rates of being in the persistently high aggression trajectory (p. 71). Importantly, the same individual, family, peer, and school factors predict both girls’ and boys’ aggression (p. 71). Unfortunately, this study did not include any abuse or trauma variables as strains. As an age and developmental theory, LCT stresses the significance of the highest offending levels likely to be in adolescence and possibly into an individual’s 20s. But research on offending, including recidivism and desistance, increasingly suggests that girls/women start or “peak” in their offending later than boys/men (C. R. Block, Blokland, van der Werff, van Os, & Nieuwbeerta, 2010; S. S. Simpson, Yahner, & Dugan, 2008; Widom et al., 2018), and that the later onset for many women offenders is related to abusive and/or criminal male partners (e.g., Bailey, 2013; DeHart, Lynch, Belknap, Dass-Brailsford, & Green, 2014; Erez & Berko, 2010; Garcia-Hallett, 2019; Sampson, 2008) something that is never found for men. The marriage effect has long been touted (and used in presentencing investigation reports, impacting sentencing outcomes) as a significant desistance factor for offending. In addition to marital status being an extralegal variable or perhaps cultural variable (addressed in Chapter 6), the marriage effect was historically tested solely on men. Doherty and Ensminger’s (2013) LCT study found support for the marriage effect for men “across crime type, with a reduction in offending between 21% and 36%,” while the marriage effect on women was only a 10% decrease in property crimes and a 9% increase in drug arrests (p. 104). A study of individuals released from prison found “never being married” impacted (increased) men’s but not women’s likelihood of being arrested for new violent crimes

(D. E. Olson, Stalans, & Escobar, 2016, p. 138). Notably, another study found that women’s “marital chances diminish as soon as they have been convicted once,” whereas men’s “are only affected if they have an extensive record” (van Schellen, Poortman, & Nieuwbeerta, 2012). Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph’s (2002) longitudinal study following incarcerated youths into adulthood found neither marriages nor romantic partners were related to keeping either women or men from recidivating. Social ties as adults appear to be almost exclusively measured in terms of marriage and divorce, denying not only the potentially devastating effects of being in a bad marriage (as compared with being single) but also the significant roles non-spouses/partners play in many people’s lives as “families of choice” (kinships made with nonrelatives). The marriage effect not only has a sexist history, but it is inherently heterosexist given that same-sex marriage was not legal until recent years, and with the current criminal legal system and societal homophobia, some LGBTQI+ offenders likely do not want to disclose their intimate relationship status.

Advancing LCT Schwartz and Steffensmeier (2017) stress that the empirical applications of LCT must improve addressing intersectionality, agency, and “the gendered mechanisms of selection into crime networks” over ages and lifetimes in offending trajectories and patterns (p. 145). Elaine Gunnison’s (2015) LCT study, using data from the U.S. National Youth Survey, provides a unique latent class analysis to put youth followed over time into four trajectory classifications: de-escalators, persistent de-escalators, persisters, and chronic fluctuators (see Table 3.3). Although the data do not include trauma or abuse variables, they provide a unique way of examining categories of offenders by gender while looking for patterns of peer attachment, delinquent peers, race, alcohol and drug use, and marital status. The only female-dominated group of the four is the de-escalators, who are the least susceptible to peer pressure, have the lowest number of delinquent peers, are more likely to be married, have the lowest drug and alcohol use, and are more likely to be of Color (less likely to be white).

Pathways Theory (PT) As early as the first two decades of the 1900s, the two scholarly articles on incarcerated women anecdotally noted their risks of coming from chaotic homes, witnessing or experiencing intimate partner abuse, and/or being sexually abused (Guibord, 1917; Spaulding, 1918). There appears, however, to be a significant lapse before scholars once again took up the abusive and traumatic life histories of women offenders. Specifically, starting in the late 1970s, feminist scholarship has increasingly used women and girls’ voices to determine traumatic and other events that place girls (and women) at risk of offending. Unlike the longitudinal data collected over time on individuals by the LCT or CVT researchers (or using such existing prospective data), these studies typically collect data at one point in time, retrospectively interviewing incarcerated women (or girls) about their lives (recall Table 3.2). Over time, this approach has come be known as the “pathways” and was first given “theory” status in 2006 (Covington & Bloom, 2006). Pathways theory (PT), designed by feminist scholars with little to no funding, has most typically sampled solely girls and women, with a major focus on sexual and physical abuse histories. As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the tenets of PT overlap with many of the tenets of LC and CVT but also with GST and SLT (discussed in Chapter 2). Fundamentally, PT posits that adverse life events, including trauma, can serve as trajectories to offending, and these adverse events may happen in childhood, adulthood, or both. The traumas included in PT are most similar to those in CVT, primarily focusing on child abuse victimization. But a key insight from PT research “is that girls’ and women’s survival strategies lead them into crime—essentially that the state tends to criminalize female responses to [surviving/resisting] abuse” (Chesney-Lind & Chagnon, 2016, p. 314). Table 3.3 ● Gunnison’s (2015) Test of Life Course Theory (LCT)

The Gendered Representation of the Four Life Course Classification Trajectories of Criminality Four Trajectory Classifications

Characteristics DeEscalators

Persistent DeEscalators

Persisters

Chronic Fluctuators

Percentage of Sample

52%

23%

16%

9%

Gender Makeup

Femaledominated

Maledominated

Maledominated

Maledominated

(65% ♀)

(66% ♂)

(77% ♂)

(65% ♂)

Peer Attachment

Least susceptible to peer pressure

Second most susceptible to peer pressure

Most susceptible to peer pressure

Second least susceptible to peer pressure

Delinquent Peers

Lowest number of delinquent peers

Third highest number of delinquent peers

Highest number of delinquent peers

Second highest number of delinquent peers

Marital Status

More likely to be married

Less likely to be married

Less likely to be married

More likely to be married

Race

Less likely More likely More likely Less likely to be white to be white to be white to be white

Alcohol/Drugs

Lowest

Medium

Highest

Medium

use

use

use

use

Source: Data from Gunnison, E. (2015). Investigating life course offender subgroup heterogeneity: An exploratory latent class analysis approach. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(4), 223–240. Notes: Data: U.S. National Youth Survey (Waves 4–7). Sample = 726 youth followed over time. Gunnison (2015) used latent class analysis to examine the differences across these groups: escalators, persistent de-escalators, persisters, and chronic fluctuators.

Studies Consistent With PT That Preceded the Naming of PT Studies conducted since the late 1970s are very consistent with what was later identified as PT. Most of the following studies are described in chronological order by the date they were published. First, between 1970 and 1975, J. James and Meyerding (1977) interviewed more than 200 women and girl prostitutes/sex workers in a large western city in the United States, finding far higher rates of coerced sex, intercourse at a young age, and incest experienced by these women and girls than were reported in existing research on nonincarcerated (community) women and girls. They identified the women and girls’ childhood sexual victimizations as risk factors for becoming prostitutes and for the pattern of sex work for survival. Silbert and Pines (1981) interviewed 200 racially diverse (69% white, 18% African American, 11% Latina, 2% Native American, and 1% Asian American) current and former prostitutes in the San Francisco Bay area, ranging from 10 to 46 years old. Although two thirds of them came from middle- or higher-income families, almost 90% reported their financial situation at the time of the interview as “just making it” or “very poor” (p. 408). Silbert and Pines found (1) three in five reported sexual abuse before the age of 16, with an average of two sexual abusers each; (2) two thirds of the sexual abuse victims were abused by fathers or father figures (stepfathers, foster fathers, and mothers’ common-law husbands); and (3) 10% were sexually abused by strangers. Furthermore, childhood sexual abuse frequently led to running away from home, which led to prostitution and other street work. Finally, when asked why they started prostituting, 90% said it was because they were hungry, needed money, and had no other options available to them (p. 410). Notably, M. Farley and Barkan’s (1998) study interviewing street sex workers also found three fifths reported child sexual abuse.

Chesney-Lind and Rodriguez’s (1983) intensive interviews with sixteen incarcerated women found half were raped as children, three fifths (62%) reported a range of sexual abuse victimizations (rape and/or other sexual abuses), and three fifths disclosed severe physical child abuse. Similar to findings of Silbert and Pines (1981), about 90% of the women reported involvement in prostitution/sex work, and for most, this was an outgrowth of running away from home in their teens and financial/survival needs. Chesney-Lind and Rodriguez (1983) also reported how subsequent drug dependency was related to further entanglement with the law. Arnold (1990) conducted intensive interviews, participant observation, and questionnaires with 60 African American women prisoners. Consistent with what is now labeled PT, but also with Kenney’s (2002) concern noted earlier that LT does not address the victimization of major trauma and the subsequent stigmatizing and shaming such victims often experience, Arnold (1990) describes how the incarcerated women she interviewed were labeled and processed as deviants and delinquents as young girls “for refusing to accept or participate in their own victimization” (p. 154). This refusal led to their alienation from three primary socialization institutions: family, educational systems, and occupational systems. This dislocation, in turn, led to their entry into “criminal life.” Arnold documents how patriarchal families and family violence, economic marginality, racist teachers, and poor educational systems individually and collectively produce environments leading to the criminalization of girls, where they are alienated in their own homes, schools, and communities. Furthermore, Arnold reports that these women and girls often “self-medicate” with drugs in attempts to numb the pain from their violent experiences and pasts. Although many published studies are consistent with, and can be referred to as, PT testing (as done in this chapter), this theory or perspective was first labeled “pathways” in 1992 in Daly’s article “Women’s Pathways to Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Lawbreaking and Problems of Representation.” Daly analyzed women’s felony court presentence investigation reports (PSIs). Although there was considerable overlap in the women’s experiences (e.g., childhood abuse victimization, battering by an intimate partner, and alcohol/drug dependency), she identified five categories of offending women: street women, harmed and harming women, battered women, drug-connected women, and other. The street women were consistent with E. M. Miller’s (1986) definition in

her classic ethnography Street Women; these are women who survived significant physical and psychological damage as a child and/or adult and ended up hustling on the street to “eke out a living” (Daly, 1992, p. 37). Harmed and harming women acted out from childhood abuse and neglect, were then labeled “problem children,” developed alcohol problems, and harmed others because they were angry from being “done wrong.” Battered women were in or just out of an intimate relationship with a very violent man, and this abuse is what brought them to court. Although there are battered women in the other categories, these women were in court for hurting or killing the man who abused them during a violent incident the man started. Daly’s drug-connected-women use or sell drugs often due to their relationships with male partners, their children, or their mothers. The battered and drug-connected women tend to have the least extensive (including no) criminal records. Finally, Daly’s other women had no or limited chemical dependency or abusive partner histories, and their crimes were economically motivated. Gilfus (1993) interviewed 20 incarcerated women to understand their entries into street crime and found many of the women’s survival skills to avoid victimization were criminal; these “skills” included running away from home, using drugs, and prostituting themselves. The women were from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, particularly the African American women. In addition to abuse and poverty, educational neglect and extremely troubling school experiences were prevalent in the women’s childhoods. The African American women reported significant racial violence in their childhoods, including a woman who, as a girl, had witnessed her uncle murdered by two white men. The women’s victimizations often led to offending, which often led to revictimization while living on the street, including rape, assault, and attempted murder. Many of the women also reported adulthood violent victimization perpetrated by their intimate male partners (domestic violence). Similarly, Comack (1996) interviewed 24 incarcerated women and, while not trying to excuse their offenses, highlighted how these women’s extreme adult and child physical and sexual abuses and subsequent offending cannot be removed from political, social, and economic analysis given their lives. One of the most profound and classic PT studies is Richie’s (1996) research reported in Compelled to Crime, focusing on incarcerated women. In this work, Richie used life-history interviews to elicit women’s voices. Ultimately, she developed her theory of gender

entrapment to understand the “contradictions and complications of the lives of the African American battered women who commit crimes” (p. 4). More specifically, gender entrapment involves understanding the connections between (1) violence against women in their intimate relationships, (2) culturally constructed genderidentity development, and (3) women’s participation in illegal activities. Two of the many important contributions of Richie’s research are her dispelling of myths about battered women regarding “why they stay” and her investigation into the impacts of race and racism and class and classism. For example, a major finding is that the African American battered women in her study appeared to have had a more privileged childhood family environment (e.g., felt loved and important) than the white battered women and the African American nonbattered women. Richie suggests this “heightened status” in their families of origin is what makes these women vulnerable to entrapment when they become involved with batterers: They become disappointed with their experiences in the public sphere where they encounter racism instead of a heightened status; thus, they refocus their goal on obtaining the perfect nuclear family. When the battering starts, they are optimistic about being able to “fix” things. In addition to identifying numerous ways that imprisoned women have been “trapped by the violence” in their intimate relationships as adults, she also reports their other pathways to crime,” including poverty and drug addiction. The goal of J. W. Moore’s (1999) study of Latinx gang members and their families in East Los Angeles was to understand gang membership in terms of major themes relating to the family, including immigration and ethnicity, parental economic status, and the climate of the homes in which the gang members were raised. Ethnic identity was reported as confusing for many of these youths, as they were virtually all born in the United States yet were raised by their parents and treated by racist Whites as if they were Mexican. For both girls and boys, the racist experiences with Whites could lead to fights. The households in which they were raised were more reflective of “poverty” than of traditional extended Mexican families, and their parents typically had little formal education. A third of the male and two fifths of the female gang members reported seeing their fathers beat their mothers. When asked about their reaction to witnessing this, about half of the females and two thirds of the males reported “withdrawing in fear” (J. W. Moore, 1999, p. 167). Notably, the females were more likely than the males to try to intervene and stop

their fathers’ abuse of their mothers or to fight their fathers themselves. About half of the boys and two thirds of the girls were clearly afraid of their fathers, often “with good reason” (p. 168). Girls were also more likely to be afraid of their mothers than were boys, and consistent with other research, girls tended to be far more restricted than their brothers by their parents. Although a few boys disclosed inappropriate sexual advances made to them as children, 29% of the girls reported incest, usually perpetrated by a father, but also by uncles, brothers, and grandfathers. Moore found that girls were more likely than boys to come from “troubled” families.

Patterns and Advancement of PT Significantly, while it is important to hold parents and guardians of youth responsible and to expect them to be non-abusive/nonviolent, there is also a long history of holding mothers far more accountable than fathers for children’s failures (including delinquency) and wellbeing. Often such narratives are not only sexist but also fraught with racism and classism. A study of incarcerated mothers found white women were more likely than African American or Latina women to report “bad homes” and “poor parenting” as their pathways to prison (Enos, 2001). African American women reported their mothers and other caretakers “as doing the best they could” in parenting them, but “the temptations of the street were too much for them to resist”; and Latinas were more likely to attribute their pathways to “the lure of quick money through drug sales” (Enos, 2001, p. 57). Numerous studies confirm PT and the disproportionately high rates of trauma, particularly sexual and physical abuse, experienced by incarcerated women and girls, rates far higher than those reported in the general population (e.g., Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Bloom, Owen, Rosenbaum, & Deschenes, 2003; Browne, 1987; Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999; Coker, Patel, Krishnaswami, & Schmidt, 1998; S. L. Cook, Smith, Tusher, & Raiford, 2005; Daly, 1992; DeHart, 2008; Gaarder & Belknap, 2002; Gehring, 2018; Girshick, 1999; Grella, Lovinger, & Warda, 2013; P. C. Johnson, 2003; C. E. Jordan, Clark, Pritchard, & Charnigo, 2012; H. Klein & Chao, 1995; Lake, 1993; McDaniels-Wilson & Belknap, 2008; S. L. Miller, 2005; Owen, 1998; Richie, 1996, 2012; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001; Singer, Bussey, Song, & Lunghofer, 1995). Significantly, PT has also been confirmed for men and boys in the studies that included them (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Dembo, Williams, Wothke, Schmeidler,

& Brown, 1992; K. A. Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; R. D. Evans, Forsyth, & Gauthier, 2002; Gehring, 2018; C. E. Jordan et al., 2012). Belknap and Holsinger’s (2006) PT test of 444 incarcerated youth found that although the abuse variables were gendered (girls reported significantly more physical and sexual abuse than boys), boys’ abuse rates, including surviving sexual abuse, were still very high: Three fifths (59%) of girls disclosed having been sexually abused by at least one person and one fifth (19%) of boys disclosed this in the anonymous surveys. Given that boys are typically three quarters to four fifths of the youth we incarcerate, this is no small problem, just as it is not for the girls. Gehring’s (2018) study of women’s and men’s pretrial outcomes—whether they failed to appear (FTA) and whether they had a new arrest while in the community—found PT applied to both genders but did so in varied ways. For women, childhood abuse indirectly increased both FTA and new arrest likelihoods through mental health and substance abuse issues, and physical child abuse was directly related to new arrests. For women, “childhood abuse led to a history of mental illness which contributed to substance abuse and later pretrial failure” (p. 128). Alternatively, for men, no distinct pathway emerged: “While childhood abuse, a history of mental illness, and a history of substance abuse are related, they are not working together to influence men’s pretrial failure” (p. 128). PT research is increasingly documenting the importance of including mental illness (Gehring, 2018; Green et al., 2016; S. M. Lynch et al., 2014) and sexual identity (Belknap, Holsinger, et al., 2012), racism (Arnold, 1990; Richie, 1996, 2012; Sommers & Baskin, 1994), school experiences (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Bloom et al., 2003; Gaarder & Belknap, 2002), and the intersections of various combinations of these variables to understand risks for actual offending and the likelihood of being labeled an offender, including when one is actually solely a victim (i.e., wrongfully identified, labeled, or convicted as an offender).

MASCULINITY THEORY (MT) Flavin (2001) points out that ignoring the role of gender in criminological theories denies how gender not only shapes girls and women’s experiences and behaviors but how gender also impacts boys and men’s experiences and behavior. Similarly, Naffine (1996)

contends that feminism, particularly using masculinity, is suitable to assess why offending is gendered, dominated by men and boys. Notably, Delgado and Stefancic (2017) define critical race masculinism as the application of CRFT “to the construction of male norms in society” (p. 171). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to detail, but MT also holds important potential for addressing the gendered aspects of fear of crime. In his 1993 book, Masculinities and Crime, Messerschmidt stresses that masculinity is key to explaining criminality, which needs to be viewed through how gender, race, and class are interconnected and intersect with three gendered social structures: labor, power, and sexuality (J. Messerschmidt, 1999). Accounting for differences among males, Messerschmidt describes how middle-class white males can use power structures, such as a good education and respectable careers, to establish masculinity and provide for themselves and their families. Lower-class males and males of Color have fewer legitimate options, however, and thus are more likely to use crime and delinquency to prove masculinity. Accounting for gender differences, it is far more important for males than for females to show power or to need to prove masculinity. Messerschmidt effectively uses these variables of class, race, and sexuality to explain rape causality, the differential treatment of males and females who are sexually active, and participation in various crimes and offenses ranging from sexual harassment to robbery and homicide. Messerschmidt’s book has been criticized not only for its portrayal of racial and socialist feminism (Daly, 1994; Hearn, 1994) but also for reinforcing racist stereotypes of African American men and boys, including neglecting middle-class Black men, and emphasizing “the history of white men in the cities, rather than the impact of slavery on black men or black men’s own histories” (Hearn, 1994, p. 634). Bottcher (2001) criticizes Messerschmidt for failing to understand what gender tells us about crime by focusing on how gender “is expressed or enacted in crime”: He does not “fully reveal the process by which crime becomes a resource for doing masculinity” (p. 896). Similarly, Laidler and Hunt (2001) question how we are to understand women and girls’ involvement in offending if crime is a mode for “doing” masculinity. Their extensive study found that “to be entirely feminine and respectable in their highly marginalized communities is unrealistic and dangerous” (p. 665). A study of the role of gender and masculinity in violent retaliations in urban street

life found that male-on-male retaliations were the most common violent retaliations and frequently involved “doing masculinity” to regain respect, but that the second most common violent retaliation was female-on-female, typically in a dispute over a man (Mullins, Wright, & Jacobs, 2004). (Female-on-male was the least common type of street retaliation violence.) E. Anderson’s (1999) classic “code of the street,” from his ethnography of the same name (Code of the Street) about predominantly African American Philadelphia neighborhoods, describes how aggressive and even violent retaliation against interpersonal attacks and insults are necessary to ensure one’s safety and maintain or gain respect, particularly for young Black men. It can also be described as how justice is meted out and regulated in impoverished urban areas. The code of the street has been found in numerous studies since the publication of Anderson’s book, including four books based on ethnographic studies of the lives of youths in different urban neighborhoods: Rios’s (2011) Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys in Oakland, CA; N. Jones’s (2010) Between Good and Ghetto: African American Girls and Inner-City Violence in Philadelphia, PA; Panfil’s (2017) The Gang’s All Queer in Columbus, OH; and J. Miller’s (2008) Getting Played: African American Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence in St. Louis, MO. N. Jones (2010) describes girls’ use of violence ranging from those who are reluctant to fight and do so only when they feel they have to (“good girls”), to girls whom she describes as “girl fighters” or “ghetto,” who fight and win fights on a regular basis. Jones found two paths to becoming a “girl fighter.” The first is the girl who learns young, typically in elementary school that being a good fighter provides her with a status among peers and more power to subvert such powers of control as parents and teachers/principals. The second is the girl who, after elementary school, is taught by male family members how to protect herself against violence in order to be less vulnerable in violent situations. Jones (2010) concludes, “For these girls, adolescent fears of violating traditional expectations regarding what it means to be feminine are at times trumped by concerns for personal safety and survival” (p. 154). Stated another way, “They accept as a fact of life that ‘sometimes you got to fight’” (p. 154). Panfil’s (2017) book, an ethnography of gay young men in gangs, most of whom are of Color, draws on “the code of the street,” masculinity, and symbolic interactionism perspectives and through

an intersectional gender, race, class, and sexuality lens. For example, the men identify “fagging out” (a reclaiming of this highly offensive label) as “acting stereotypically gay (flamboyant) in overt and aggressive ways, to show that flamboyant can also mean being fierce to defend oneself” (p. 189). The Gang’s All Queer provides rich data for understanding gender performance, drug-selling, sex work, violent crime, and gang members’ preference for legal (over illegal) work.

SUMMARY The Marxist or “new criminologists” of the early 1970s were just as guilty of omitting women and girls from their theories and analyses as the traditional theorists, despite the powerful potential of gender and sexual stratification in society to explain criminal behavior and official/systemic processing. Although critical legal studies (CritLS) emerged to explain how the laws were inherently oppressive to the poor and disenfranchized, it was dominated by white elite men and criticized by women and people of Color in leftist academia who became frustrated with its well-meaning but limited views. Subsequently, critical race theory (CRT) and then critical race feminist theory (CRFT) emerged and have been far more useful in applications to criminology research than have the Marxist and CCT theories’ applications, overall. The overlaps between the cycle of violence theory (CVT), life course theory (LCT), and pathways theory (PT) are summarized in Table 3.2, and it is not surprising that research increasingly combines two or all three of these theories in the same study, and sometimes with general strain theory (GST), social learning theory (SLT), and/or CRFT. Masculinity theory (MT) also holds the potential to provide a better understanding of criminal behavior and the intersections of gender with race, class, sexuality, and so on. Many queer and/or of Color ethnographic criminologists have been highly effective in applying MT and E. Anderson’s (1999) “code of the street” approach to their work (E. Anderson, 1999; N. Jones, 2010, 2018; Panfil, 2017; Rios, 2011). It is clear that criminology needs to more consistently include adverse life events, including child maltreatment, to not only understand and theorize about offending but also to understand the structural and systemic impacts of sexism, racism, classism, and institutions such as schools, the police, the courts, and prisons/jails

in understanding and more effectively responding to crime (Javdani, Sadeh, & Verona, 2011; McKeown, 2010). The final chapter (Chapter 14) will describe some of the exciting combinations of theories in more current research.

4 ACCOUNTING FOR GENDER–CRIME PATTERNS The study of gender and crime has followed a trajectory, from finding that women offend differently, to exploring how gendered lives impact the nature and extent of offending. —Conover-Williams (2014, p. 449)

Studies consistently show not only that girls and women commit far fewer crimes than boys and men but also that their offenses tend to be less serious and violent in nature. This chapter draws on prior and current research and data to describe girls and women’s offending and assess gender comparisons in offending. For a complete understanding of the studies and data, a gendered account of offending must be examined and understood in several contexts: 1. The extent of offending 2. The nature of offending 3. Gender stereotypes and assumptions about girls and women’s offending a. How gender stereotypes and assumptions intersect with race, class, sexuality, nationality, and other factors b. How gender stereotypes influence legal codes and enforcement of laws that have a gendered impact 4. Changes in the extent and nature of offending over time The extent of offending is the frequency with which various offenses (e.g., homicide, burglary, arson) or combinations of offenses (e.g., delinquency, violent crimes, property crimes) are committed. The nature of offending addresses the type and seriousness of various offenses. Gender comparisons in offending are commonly evaluated by determining which offenses are gender-related and which are genderneutral (Smart, 1976). Gender-related crimes are more likely to be committed by one sex/gender than the other. Gender-neutral crimes are equally likely to be committed by one sex/gender or the other. If an offense is gender-related, it is further identified by male- or female-gender-related to designate which gender is more likely to commit the crime. Most crimes are male-gender-related, and rape, homicide, and other violent crimes are especially so. The most common example of a female-gender– related crime is sex work (mostly measured as prostitution). There were no existing guidelines on what percentages constitute gender-neutral or gender-related until the fourth edition of this book, where I designated a crime as gender-related if there was a gender gap of more than 20 percentage points, and gender-neutral with a gender gap of less than 10 percentage points. Crimes with a gender gap between these— that is, greater than 10% and less than 20%—are designated as approaching genderrelated (see Figure 4.1). Historically, legal codes for some offenses were written so that only one sex/gender could be a victim or offender. For example, until the 1970s many rape laws specified that only men (and boys) could be offenders and only women (and girls) could be victims. Similarly, many prostitution laws specified only women and girls as offenders (and no “victims,” but male clients were occasionally considered offenders). Significantly, even if the legal code is gender-neutral in identifying offenders and/or victims (i.e., not specifying “penis,” “woman,” etc.), the applications may still be gender-specific (Allison Morris, 1987). For example, even when the prostitution laws are changed to include male sex workers or to arrest clients as well as sex workers, police may be less likely to detect male sex workers because they do not envision them in these roles, and police, prosecutors and judges may continue to disregard sex worker clients as offenders (even if the law identifies them as law-breakers) because they do not fit their stereotypes of offenders (see Farley & Kelly, 2000). These responses are likely legacies of the positivist theorists (Chapter 2).

MEASURING CRIME Crime rates are measured in many ways. In large national studies, typically, the rate is the number of offenses per 100,000 people in the population and measured by police arrests or some other official criminal legal system (CLS) response. The most popular data sets used to assess crime rates in the United States are the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), yearly arrests reported by police departments across the country, which is gradually being replaced by the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). (The most recent statistics are accessible through the Bureau of Justice Statistics website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.) The biggest shortcoming of UCR and NIBRS is they do not include crimes unknown and unreported to the police. NIBRS is preferable to the UCR in that it (1) includes more crimes (e.g., NIBRS includes domestic violence and UCR does not); (2) measures race/ethnicity far better; (3) provides far more detail about the crime incident, the victims and offenders (and how they are related to each other), victim injury, and property loss; and unlike UCR, (4) includes more arrest and clearance information (Pattavina, Carkin, & Tracy, 2017). However, NIBRS is not nationally representative data yet; currently it reports from around 7,000 law enforcement agencies covering around a third of the U.S. population in 36 states (A. Cooper, personal communication, July 10, 2019; Gavrilova, 2019).

Description

Figure 4.1 ● Assessing the Gender Gap in Offending Rates Note: For gender-related offenses, when the men/boys have the higher rate the offense is male-gender-related, and when the women/girls have the higher rate the offense is female-gender-related.

But given that most crimes are never reported to the police, particularly those where victims feel stigmatized, which is most gender-based abuses, victimization surveys are typically preferable to UCR or NIBRS. In the United States this is primarily the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS, once called the National Crime Survey [NCS]), a survey of representative households from across the country collected by the federal government. Finally, some studies also use self-reported offending, which again, is more likely to reflect most crime rates. Also, self-reported offending is often compared with official records, and if matched by the individuals in both (self-report and offending), it is an ideal way to determine sexism, racism, and so on, in who is held more accountable for offending by the CLS. These victim or offender self-report measures of crime rates include distributing written or computer surveys and conducting one-on-one phone or in-person interviews. Clearly, if conducted repeatedly (such as the NCVS, UCR, NIBRS)—they can be used to examine changes over time.

2009–2018 Arrest Rates From the UCR Although I warn against using solely UCR data, I use the most recent UCR data available at the time of writing this book for Table 4.1, because NIBRS, NCVS, and other data are far more difficult to access and NIBRS is not yet representative of the United States. Specifically, Table 4.1 presents 2018 UCR arrest data, compares offending from 2009 to 2018 (to examine potential changes in the gender gap for a 10-year period), and reports overall gender differences (all arrests) and gender differences solely for youth (juvenile arrests). The 2018 UCR data strongly support crime as almost exclusively male-gender-related: Boys and men were 73% of arrests, representing almost three times as many arrests as those of girls and women (27%) (see Table 4.1). Focusing solely on youth (under age 18), girls represent slightly more of the arrests (30%) than combining girls and women. Thus, the gender gap in arrests is slightly less (3%) among youths than among all ages combined. Table 4.1 ● Arrest Rates in the United States: 2018 and 10-Year Trends (Percent Change from 2009–2018)

Offense

All 2018 Arrests (All Ages) N of Arrests

Youth 2018 % 10-Year Change 2009-2018 Arrests

% % % % All All Girls Boys Female Male Girls Boys Females Males

TOTAL ARRESTS

7,811,085 27.2

72.8

30.2

69.8

-15.1

-24.2

-57.7 -58.8

Index Violent Arrests

396,265

20.9

79.1

20.3

79.7

-0.7

-13.4

-34.6 -41.7

12.2

87.8

4.1

95.9

+9.4

-6.3

+7.5

-21.4 ----

Murder/manslaughter 9,049 Rapea

19,093

3.2

96.8

11.4

88.6

----

----

----

Robbery

67,397

15.1

84.9

27.8

72.2

-11.9

-33.5

-39.0 -46.0

Aggravated assault

300,726

23.6

76.4

4.1

95.9

+0.3

-9.0

-34.9 -45.0

Index Property Arrests

894,987

36.9

63.1

32.8

67.2

-31.8

-30.8

-72.8 -65.3

Burglary

135,918

19.6

80.4

13.3

86.7

-25.2

-43.9

-67.4 -70.7

Larceny-theft

682,517

42.0

58.0

39.5

60.5

-34.2

-29.5

-74.3 -66.5

Motor vehicle theft

69,502

22.8

77.2

18.6

81.4

+44.9

+6.9

-21.0 -25.9

Arson

7,050

22.5

77.5

16.2

83.8

+1.5

-28.9

-59.3 -67.9

Offense

All 2018 Arrests (All Ages)

Youth 2018 % 10-Year Change 2009-2018 Arrests

N of Arrests

% % % % All All Girls Boys Female Male Girls Boys Females Males

Other assaultsb

809,050

28.9

71.1

37.0

63.0

-9.3

-21.0

-36.6 -43.8

Forgery/ counterfeiting

38,128

33.8

66.2

20.0

80.0

-42.6

-33.0

-64.0 -41.5

Fraud

90,886

36.2

63.8

33.0

67.0

-51.4

-37.0

-45.4 -40.2

Embezzlement

11,278

49.7

50.3

39.4

60.6

-20.2

-19.3

-11.0 +1.7

Stolen property

70,996

22

78

16.3

83.7

+7.2

-8.1

-49.4 -48.2

Vandalism

137,108

23

77

18.7

81.3

-12.8

-36.4

-51.5 -66.6

Weapons

127,588

9.3

90.7

11.8

88.2

+18.5

-3.7

-43.4 -52.3

64.3

35.7

42.5

57.5

-59.8

-37.0

-90.1 -58.4

6.9

93.1

10.5

89.5

-41.3

-36.3

-44.1 -42.2

Non-Index Offenses:

Prostitution & 23,699 Commercialized Vice Sex offensec

35,549

Drug abuse violation

1,251,852 24.7

75.3

25.9

74.1

+39.7

-0.1

-12.2 -49.8

Gambling

2,475

17.2

82.8

11.4

88.6

-34.2

-55.0

+0.0

Family/children offense

64,872

30.3

69.7

38.8

61.2

-8.6

-26.1

-26.8 -34.5

DUI

746,575

25.5

74.5

25.3

74.7

-24.0

-34.8

-61.2 -62.0

Liquor law violation

130,921

30.5

69.5

42.6

57.4

-67.8

-70.2

-73.7 -77.4

-76.9

Offense

All 2018 Arrests (All Ages)

Youth 2018 % 10-Year Change 2009-2018 Arrests

N of Arrests

% % % % All All Female Male Girls Boys Females Males Girls Boys

Drunkenness

252,727

21

79

31.3

68.7

-29.6

-46.4

-71.1 -78.2

Disorderly conduct

251,182

29.6

70.4

35.8

64.2

-42.7

-49.0

-61.4 -65.6

Vagrancy

18,121

24.3

75.7

23.5

76.5

+14.6

-6.3

-45.5 -48.8

All other non-traffic offenses

2,439,500 26.9

73.1

29.1

70.9

+2.8

-14.7

-50.6 -56.9

Suspicion

427

24.4

75.6

31.0

69.0

-44.8

-51.9

-40.0 -71.8

Curfew/ loitering

16,899

30.2

69.8

33.7

66.3

-77.1

-77.7

-77.1 -77.7

aThe

2009 rape figures are based on the legacy definition, and the 2018 rape figures are aggregate totals based on both the legacy and revised UCR definitions. For this reason, a percent change is not provided. b”Other assaults” include assaults that are not the “aggravated assaults classified under the violent crime index.” cSex offenses other than rape and prostitution. Source: U.S. Department of Justice. (2019). Crime in the United States 2018: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Government Printing Office. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-inthe-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018. Data for this table are directly calculated from Tables 33 and 42.

Now turning to the nature and extent of offending, of 2018 U.S. arrests, the index crimes are divided into violent and property crimes (and even further broken down into the specific violent and property index crimes) and the non-index offenses (Table 4.1). First, women and girls account for about 21% of the composite violent index offense arrests and almost 37% of composite index property crime arrests, making both of these composite measures (overall violent and overall property index crimes) male-gender-related. Second, all individual violent index crimes, are male-genderrelated with women and girls constituting 12% of murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, 15% of robbery, 24% of aggravated assaults, and 3% of rape arrests. In addition to the U.S. 2018 index crime arrests, Table 4.1 includes 20 non-index offense arrest rates. In sum, only four individual offenses were not solidly male-gender-related: (1) embezzlement was gender-neutral among combined ages (but male-gender-related among youth); (2) larceny-theft approached male-gender-related for combined ages (but was solidly male-gender-related among youths) and was the only violent or nonviolent index crime that was not solidly male-gender-related; (3) prostitution and commercialized vice were solidly female-gender-related for combined ages but, for the first time, approached male-gender-related among youths; and (4) liquor law violations approached male-gender-related among youths but were solidly malegender-related among combined ages. It is remarkable that prostitution and commercialized vice have always been female-gender-related and indicates the vulnerability of boys to being sex workers/prostitutes, but it is necessary to remember that arrest rates do not necessarily reflect the actual offending rates.

Documenting and Assessing Gender Patterns in Offending Over Time Four Options to Describe Gender–Crime Patterns Over Time The gender patterns of crime rates over time received unprecedented attention with the advent of Adler’s (1975) and R. J. Simon’s (1975) women’s “liberation” emancipation hypothesis (WLEH) (described in Chapter 2). “Moral panic” in the last third of the 20th century (about the time of the WLEH), whereby fears about advancing gender equality resulted in harsher policies targeting women and girls (Kruttschnitt, Gartner, & Hussemann, 2008). Figure 4.2 portrays the possible options in assessing gender patterns of offending over time. Gender stability (Option A) is any pattern where the gender rates are stable over time. Stated alternatively, they covary: rising, falling, and staying flat together1. For example, we might expect that in an era of “get-tough-on-crime” policies or in times of economic depression, men’s and women’s crime rates would be equally affected—unless the policy of economic hardship was likely to affect one gender more than another. With gender divergence (Option B), the gender gap widens over time, meaning gender differences/gaps in crime rates are increasing. Gender convergence (Option C), consistent with WLEH, describes any time that the gender gap is decreasing, where gender–crime rates approach each other. A final possibility, no trend (Option D), is when there is no gendered trend or pattern over time.2 1

O’Brien (1999, p. 100) labels this phenomenon “co-integration,” where the gender trends maintain a linked relationship with each other over time. 2

Option D, “no trend” is from O’Brien (1999).

Description

Figure 4.2 ● Examples of Comparing Gender Patterns Over Time Three Steps to Assess, Interpret, and Explain Gender Convergence Findings Defining the Three Steps. When examining crime patterns over time, particularly gender convergence, it is useful to unpack the data with what other measurement and social, political, economic factors might be affecting any changes found over time or that differ across groups over time (e.g., gender differences, in our case). Step 1 is to examine the gender convergence patterns, even if “only” using official, say UCR, data, to determine whether it is because (1) male rates are decreasing at a faster pace than female rates(are decreasing), or (2) male rates are increasing at a slower rate than

female rates (are increasing). Steps 2 and 3 are much more difficult. Step 2 stresses that using police data to assess gender–crime patterns is problematic given how many crimes are unreported and unknown to the police, that reporting to the police varies by the type of crime (e.g., gender-based abuse crimes are some of the most underreported), and arrest data may be a better indication of police disproportionately targeting and privileging individuals (e.g., racial profiling, policing neighborhoods differently, etc.) than the actual offending rates. Most gender gap crime research uses U.S. UCR (arrest) data, although NIBRS is increasingly used. Step 2, then, is to compare arrest rates (and other CLS-generated data, such as court convictions) with self-reported offending and/or victimization data (e.g., NCVS) for the same period. Indeed, most criminologists agree that self-report data are a far more accurate measure of the actual crime rate than arrest data, given the numerous crimes unknown and unreported to the police. Also, people are quite honest and consistent in their self-reports of offending (W. Pollock, Hill, Menard, & Elliott, 2016). Step 3 is accounting for potential economic, social, and/or policy changes happening that might affect offending patterns and, for the purposes of this chapter, do so in a gendered way. Stated alternatively, when there is gender convergence documented by official statistics, it is important to assess how much is offender-generated (individuals committing more or fewer crimes) and how much is due to economic changes such as the feminization of poverty (increasing women’s “survival” offenses) and to changes in the behavior of social control agents and policy, also referred to as “law in action” (Harmon & O’Brien, 2011; J. Schwartz & Rookey, 2008; J. Schwartz, Steffensmeier, & Feldmeyer, 2009). A key aspect of Step 3 has to do with net widening—CLS policies or practices that define and include more behaviors as offenses. Given that net widening typically involves including more minor behaviors as delinquent or criminal, and women and girls disproportionately commit the more minor offenses, net widening is likely to result in a higher percentage of female than male entanglement in the CLS, indicating gender convergence when actual offending has not changed but responses to it have (Harmon & O’Brien, 2011; Javdani et al., 2011; J. Schwartz & Rookey, 2008). In contrast with the WLEH, most research addressing gender–crime patterns, until the 1990s, reported a strong tendency toward gender stability, that is, finding women’s crime rates basically stayed the same except in the areas of less serious property crimes and drugs (Boritch & Hagan, 1990; Canter, 1982; Chilton & Datesman, 1987; Giordano, Kerbel, & Dudley, 1981; Kruttschnitt et al., 2008; Leonard, 1982; Naffine, 1987; Steffensmeier, 1993; Steffensmeier & Cobb, 1981; Steffensmeier & Steffensmeier, 1980; Steffensmeier & Streifel, 1992). An exception is a UCR study of youth arrest rates during the 1960s and early 1970s that found the larceny offenses by girls increased by 250%, which the authors attributed to “baby boomers” hitting the high-risk offending ages (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992). Studies published since the 1990s using arrest data (primarily the UCR) are mostly consistent with gender convergence; that is, evidence showed an increasingly larger percentage of arrests among girls and women (e.g., Brener, Simon, Krug, & Lowy, 1999; Chesney-Lind & Belknap, 2004; Kaufman, 2009; Lauritsen, Heimer, & Lynch, 2009; Marcus, 2009; Rosenfield, Phillips, & White, 2006; J. Schwartz et al., 2009; Steffensmeier & Schwartz, 2004; Steffensmeier, Schwartz, Zhong, & Ackerman, 2005; Steffensmeier, Zhong, Ackerman, Schwartz, & Agha, 2006; T. Stevens, Morash, & Chesney-Lind, 2011). According to UCR data, girls and women were 10% of arrests in 1965, 14% in 1980, 16% in 1990, 20% in 2000 (Steffensmeier & Schwartz, 2004), 26% in 2011, and, as we can see in Table 4.1, 30% in 2018. In other words, between 1965 and 2018, women and girls’ percentage of all arrests increased 270%. However, given that this was only a 1% increase in the last decade, the convergence could be leveling into stability. At the same time that we acknowledge indications of gender convergence, it is also necessary to remember that for the 28 offenses listed in Table 4.1, all were solidly male-gender-related except larceny-theft (approaching-male-gender-related for combined ages), embezzlement (genderneutral for combined ages), prostitution and commercialized vice (female-genderrelated for combined ages, approaching-male-gender-related for youths), and liquor law violations (approaching-male-gender-related, but only for youths).

Research Assessing the Three Steps. The “percentage 10-year change” columns in Table 4.1 indicate that for Step 1, the gender convergence is at least in part due to men and boys’ arrest rates decreasing at a steeper rate than women and girls’ arrest rates are decreasing. This is consistent with many other studies analyzing UCR, NVCS, and other data sets (Kruttschnitt et al., 2008; Lauritsen et al., 2009; Rennison, 2009; J. Schwartz & Beltz, 2018). Regarding Step 2 since the 1990s, arrest data more consistently support gender convergence; the victimization data, and especially self-report offending data, indicate far more gender stability and in some cases gender divergence, particularly for violent offending (e.g., Brener et al., 1999; Chesney-Lind & Belknap, 2004; Kaufman, 2009; Lauritsen et al., 2009; Marcus, 2009; Rosenfield et al., 2006; J. Schwartz et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2011). Stevens and her colleagues (2011) found that although UCR data indicated significantly increased official involvement of African American boys and all girls (but particularly African American girls), self-report offending data indicated gender stability. Significantly, in their analysis of 30 years of NIBRS violent offense data, J. Schwartz, Conover-Williams, and Clemons (2015) confirmed their “consistent sex-stratification hypothesis,” that the gender composition of violent crimes has not changed over time. Specifically, the gender gap among the violent crimes stayed consistent over time (1% of homicides, 2%–3% of robberies, and 11% of felony assaults). This impressive study suggests that NIBRS data are preferable to UCR data for assessing gender–crime patterns, which is not unexpected as NIBRS police data are lauded as more accurate than UCR police data (as noted previously). Recall that Step 3 is accounting for changes in economic, social, and political conditions, including net widening, when analyzing gender–crime patterns. Three important studies published in the 1980s countered the official (police data) data of the time indicating that women were committing more property offenses (gender convergence). First, Box and Hale’s (1983, 1984) studies of crime patterns in England and Wales from 1951 to 1980 found women’s “increasing economic marginalization” (along with less chivalrous police and court treatment, consistent with Step 3) was driving their upward theft crimes (Box & Hale, 1983, p. 43). Second and similarly, Chilton and Datesman’s (1987) analysis of the larceny arrests in the five largest U.S. cities from 1960 to 1980 noted “the most plausible explanation” for gender convergence was “the worsening economic situation of young Black women in older U.S. central cities” (p. 152). This work evolved into the economic marginalization hypothesis and the feminization of poverty, to account for relative disadvantage in assessing crime trends. Campaniello and Gavrilova’s (2018) analysis of 1995 to 2015 NIBRS property crime and robbery data reported that women and girls committed 30% of crimes but controlled for incentives to commit crimes (i.e., criminal earnings and probability of arrest). Women and girls on average, earned 13% less than men and boys and had a 9% lower risk of arrest. Their analysis concluded no gender differences in responses to changing arrest rates, but men and boys “respond more to changes in illegal earnings,” which explained 8% of the gender gap (p. 289). In terms of the net-widening component of Step 3, Schwartz and colleagues’ (2015) analysis of 30 years of NIBRS data (referred to in the previous paragraph) found only one indication of gender convergence, “a small but steady 5% cumulative increase over 13 years in the share of all-female simple assault incidents (15%-20%),” which they noted “ coincide with implementation of mandatory and prearrest policies for minor violence in which women typically have engaged” (p. 75). Another example of Step 3 net widening can be seen when accounting for the practice “charging up” or “up-criming”—policies that relabeled some status crimes such as “child in need of supervision” or a simple assault as a “delinquent act,” including an aggravated assault (Acoca, 1999; L. M. Brown, Chesney-Lind, & Stein, 2007; Cauffman, 2008; Chesney-Lind & Belknap, 2004; Javdani et al., 2011; Kruttschnitt et al., 2008; Steffensmeier et al., 2005; T. Stevens et al., 2011). Examples include mothers calling the police because their daughters threw a Barbie doll or cookie at them. Parents are more likely to call the police on their daughters than their sons, and sometimes for actions such as the girl running away because of the mother’s boyfriend’s inappropriate and/or illegal behavior (Lederman & Brown, 2000).

Up-criming can also be seen in many school “no tolerance” practices where less serious infractions, as well as youth-on-youth fighting that was formerly handled by school officials, now involve the police and courts (Lederman & Brown 2000; Stevens et al., 2011). Moreover, up-criming policies are hardest hitting in communities of Color and economically marginalized communities where youths are already more heavily monitored by the police and other officials (Annamma et al., 2019; L. M. Brown et al., 2007; Gion et al., 2018; M. W. Morris, 2015; Stevens et al., 2011). Recall Stevens et al.’s (2011) study lauded in reporting on Step 2, where self-report data indicated gender stability when UCR did not. Consistent with Step 3, they further attributed the disproportionately harsher CLS responses to racist and sexist enforcement of policy changes (e.g., domestic violence policies and in-school “zero tolerance” policies), whereby African American boys and all girls, but particularly African American girls, were treated disproportionately harshly. Thus, feminist scholars have been identifying the complicated and often sexist, racist, classist, and homophobic responses to the identification of girls and women’s use of violence as a result of victimization (e.g., Belknap, Holsinger, et al., 2012; L. M. Brown et al., 2007; Henriksen & Miller, 2012; N. Jones, 2008; Kruttschnitt et al., 2008; J. Miller, 2001, 2008; S. L. Miller, 2001; Potter, 2008; Richie, 2012; J. Schwartz et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2011). A final example of the net widening in terms of Step 3 is DUI arrests. Although men’s driving under the influence (DUI) rates outpace women’s by a “sizeable” gap, where the more serious the DUI, the wider the gender gap (women were 25% of the DUI arrests but 18% of DUI traffic fatalities) (J. Schwartz & Beltz, 2018, p. 10), DUI arrest data since the 1980s support gender convergence (A. A. Robertson, Liew, & Gardner, 2011; J. Schwartz & Beltz, 2018; J. Schwartz & Rookey, 2008). Three studies attribute the DUI gender convergence, at least in part, to states’ changes in DUI laws and law enforcement, primarily hightened police enforcement and lowering the DUI blood alcohol content (BAC) maximum from 0.10% to 0.08%. Such BAC-lowering laws disproportionately affect women because they generally weigh less than men, so they can more easily “hit” the lower BAC level and thus are more likely then men to get snared in this net-widening policy (A. A. Robertson et al., 2011; J. Schwartz & Beltz 2018; J. Schwartz & Rookey 2008).

The Most Recent UCR Data and the Gender–Crime Gap 2009– 2018. Table 4.1 includes a gendered account of U.S. arrest (using UCR data) trends over a decade, from 2009 through 2018. Total females’ (women and girls’) and males’ (men and boys’) percentage changes over this time period are reported, as well as girls’ and boys’ (under the age of 18) percentage changes, separately. “Eyeballing” these data suggests that, consistent with most of the gender–crime gap research since the 1990s, gender convergence is the most common pattern. Again, keep in mind the limitations of UCR data and that almost all offending, measured by UCR data (arrests), were male-gender-related. Table 4.1 also indicates that 24 of 28 individual offense types, as well as the composite violent and property index crimes, were malegender-related. Again, as shown in Table 4.1, gender convergence (the gender gap is closing) is the most frequently occurring gender–crime pattern. Analyses conducted to compare the gender changes over 10 years used a definition of “less than 5.0%” gender difference in the 10-year change to designate gender stability, whereas gender differences over 5.0% were identified as gender convergence or gender divergence.3 Rape arrest changes were not included in the 10-year change due to a legally changing definition, but the calculations were done for total arrests, violent index crimes, violent property crimes, individual index crimes, and all other offenses. Findings are as follows: 3

The author conducted the gender comparison of changes over 10 years to determine stability, convergence, or divergence. They are not shown here. Also, remember that rape definitions changed between 2009 and 2018 so could not be used for the 10-year change rate (see Table 4.1 footnotes).

Consistently gender convergent (regardless of age group) (n = 14 offenses combined ages and 14 among youth): composite violent index crimes, murder/manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, other assaults, arson, vandalism, weapons carrying/possession, drug abuse violations, gambling, offenses against the family and children, drunkenness, non-traffic driving offenses, and suspicion Gender stable for combined ages (n = 10): total arrests, burglary, motor vehicle theft, stolen property, sex offenses (not rape or prostitution), DUI, liquor law violations, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, and curfew/loitering Gender stable among youth (n = 5): index property offenses, larceny-theft, embezzlement, liquor law violations, and curfew/loitering Gender divergent for combined ages (n = 5): index property offenses, larcenytheft, forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement Gender divergent among youth (n = 3): fraud and prostitution/commercialized vice

THE ROLES OF GENDER REGARDING CO-OFFENDERS, AGE, RACE, CLASS, SEXUALITY, AND MENTAL ILLNESS Chapters 2 and 3 pointed out how many criminological theories have tended to ignore women and girls or have viewed them through a stereotypical lens that usually distorts their real-life experiences (particularly abuse victimization). Any analysis of gender must avoid a similarly restricted view by accounting for differences among women and girls based on their age, race and ethnicity, social class, sexuality, nationality/citizenship (and immigration status), religion, disability status, and other factors. As noted already, the main source for measuring U.S. crime rates, the UCR, is limited for a variety of reasons, such as they only report on offenses that were reported to the police and where arrests were made. Additionally, they report no information on class or socioeconomic status, and although this has improved some, the information they report on sex, race, and age is done so in a manner that too often makes it impossible to determine the intersection of these variables, such as race × sex, or race × sex × age. Also, it is important to keep in mind that officially collected crime data (e.g., the UCR) are likely a better indicator of those individuals detained by the police and formally processed by the system than of actual offending, given that the majority of crimes are not reported to the police and, of those reported, the police do not always “solve” them. This section analyzes some of the important variables and characteristics often related to actual offending and/or how offending is perceived.

Co-Offending Whether an offender commits crimes alone or with others (co-offending) is gendered. Like solo offending, most co-offending, particularly serious offending, is by boys and men (e.g., Becker & McCorkel, 2011; Charette & Papachristos, 2017; Holleran & Vandiver, 2016; J. Schwartz et al., 2015; Steffensmeier, Schwartz, & Roche, 2013). Becker and McCorkel’s (2011) co-offending NIBRS study included the widest range of offenses. They found over 62% of offenses were committed by one man/boy, 20% by one woman/girl, 9% by two or more boys/men, 6% by mixed-gender pairs or groups, and only 2% by two or more girls/women. Moreover, the only crimes for which “allfemale groups” did not “account for the smallest proportion of incidents” were shoplifting (mixed-gender groups are the smallest) and prostitution and embezzlement (where all-male groups were the least prevalent) (p. 88). A study of corporate crimes found that 71% of the cases were men acting alone or with other men, while mixed-gender groups constituted the remaining 29% of the corporate crimes (Steffensmeier et al., 2013). Thus, every case of a corporate criminal acting alone was of a man (no women acted alone). Moreover, the few times women corporate criminals were “ringleaders” was in collaboration with men, usually their

spouses, and in all corporate crimes, the women offenders profited significantly less, and in some cases not at all, compared to the men with whom they co-offended (Steffensmeier et al., 2013). When offending without boys/men, women/girls tend to “cluster in a relatively narrow range of offenses” (Becker & McCorkel, 2011, p. 99). When they co-offend with men/boys, however, they commit a broader range of and more serious crimes (Becker & McCorkel, 2011; J. Schwartz et al., 2015). Additionally, regardless of offenders’ gender, they are more likely to co-offend with men/boys (Becker & McCorkel, 2011; J. Schwartz et al., 2015), and girls/women are even more likely to co-offend with men/boys when more force or aggression is required, the crime is more for profit than emotional, the victim is a stranger (thus a less certain outcome), and “skill, knowledge, or access to weapons such as guns is required” (J. Schwartz et al., 2015, p. 69). Women/girls are more likely than men/boys to commit a sexual abuse/assault offense with a male co-offender (Becker & McCorkel, 2011; Comartin, Burgess-Proctor, Kubiak, & Kernsmith, 2018). A study of women convicted of sexual abuse/assault found they were more likely to have a co-offender when they had been threatened with a weapon by an intimate partner, had experienced childhood disruptions in parental attachment, and the victim was female (Comartin et al., 2018). Seventy percent of co-offending women/girl sexual abuse offenders reported being coerced by their co-offenders, and they were more likely to have experienced childhood abuse victimization (Comartin et al., 2018).

Age and Juvenile Delinquency Age is important because it has been well documented that there are relatively few “career criminals.” Most people who break the law do so roughly between the ages of 15 and 24. Kruttschnitt’s (1996) careful review of existing studies reports that “the age-crime relationship may not be gender invariant,” meaning that there exist gender differences depending on age (p. 139). For example, the ratio of male-to-female offending varies significantly depending on the age group examined, and factors such as age at initiation into offending, age at which one escalates to more serious offending, and age at which offenders stop offending all vary by gender (Kruttschnitt, 1996). In 2018, 7.1% of all arrests, 7.7% of all female arrests, and 6.8% of all male arrests were individuals under 18 years old (U.S. Department of Justice, 2019, Tables 38, 39, and 40). Overall, gender uniformity in youthful offending is most apparent in (1) less serious offenses (see Table 4.1), (2) offending self-report studies, and (3) victimization self-report studies. Status offenses are only crimes for juveniles (under age 18) and include running away from home, drinking alcohol, and truancy from school. The up-criming discussed earlier is an example of age-related CLS processing. Triplett and Myers’s (1995) classic study using National Youth Survey self-report data from more than 1,500 youths found that for the 22 offenses listed under the categories of “status offenses,” “vandalism,” “theft,” and “assault,” boys were more likely to report every crime except running away and hitting a parent, for which boys and girls reported similar rates (about 5% of each ran away from home and about 4% of each hit a parent). When examining the number of times the youths committed an offense at least once (as opposed to the total number of times), there were fewer gender differences. When analyzing gender differences in the context of youths committing crimes, Triplet and Myers found few gender differences for status, property, and theft offenses. The exceptions were the destination when youths ran away, the form of assaults, the extent of injury in assaults, whether the youths were on drugs during the assaults, the purpose of force in assaults, and whether victims were hurt in the assaults. More specifically, girls were more likely than boys to report running to a friend’s house when they ran away, hurting their assault victims when the victims were students, and using force for reasons other than to get money. Regarding the context of committing assaults, boys were more likely than girls to report being on drugs during the assault, hurting their victims if their victims were not students, beating their victims or attacking them with a weapon, and having their victims cut or hospitalized. Thus, there were few gender differences in the context of offending for status, vandalism (property), or theft offenses, and the context of offending resulted in gender gaps more often in the commission of violent offenses.

Intersections With Race/Ethnicity and Class Race/ethnicity is vital to understanding crime rates because of the potential for it to be skewed as a result of racist discrimination and how race/ethnicity are related to class and wealth (currently and through wealth legacies) and access to legal employment. Kruttschnitt (1996) points out that ignoring racial variations in gender comparisons of offending is “short-sighted” because it presumes that all races “are similarly situated in social life and so influenced by the same risk factors” (p. 131). In 1981, D. K. Lewis instructed that it is almost impossible to make these important distinctions about racial/ethnic variations among women (and among men) because of how the UCR and prison data are typically reported. Unfortunately, the problem still exists. For example, if one accesses the Bureau of Justice Statistics website to examine crime rates for a specific year or over time, the tables typically report looking at one, two, and possibly three variables at a time, but the format makes it impossible to understand how, for example, the rates break down when controlling for gender/sex, race/ethnicity, and age at the same time. Fortunately, government reports sometimes do this for the public, but these breakdowns are not always accessible. Additionally, until recently the racial/ethnic breakdowns were usually restricted to African American and white, which fails to account for variations among Latinx, Asian American, Indigenous, and other racial/ethnic individuals. Significantly, official statistics such as the UCR and NIBRS, court convictions, and imprisonment rates rely on CLS actors’ perceptions of whether a crime occurred. Theoretically, police arrest, prosecutors prosecute, and judges and juries convict only when they believe there is a strong likelihood that a person committed a crime. Thus, a major threat to the validity of using official statistics of crime rates is that discrimination distorts the statistics. For example, if Latinas are more likely than white women to be arrested for the same offense, the official statistics would exaggerate the Latinas’ offending relative to white women. If African American women are more likely than Latinas to be arrested for the same offense, then official statistics will inflate African American women’s crime rates. Thus, when differences are found based on gender, race/ethnicity, class, age, and so on, it is not clear whether there are distinct actual offending differences in the categories or whether the differences among the categories represent differential (discriminatory) processing of offenders (e.g., sexist, racist, classist, etc. practices). D. K. Lewis’s (1981) review of research found that “correctional” statistics suggest that African American women “display somewhat greater involvement with violent and other personal crimes than white women” (p. 93). But Lewis also cautions that when examining arrest records or other data to compare various races’ offending patterns, it is important to control for age because the higher ratio of African American to white females’ violent crime rates might partially be explained by the fact that the African American population as a whole is younger (and thus in a higher-risk age group) than the white population. On the other hand, the age difference between African Americans and whites cannot by itself, according to Lewis, explain the offending differences between white and African American women; these analyses must also consider economic deprivation, gender status inequality, socialization, gender role expectations, and racism. Black women, then, display gender role behavior, a social status, and a crime pattern, all of which contradict acceptable feminine behavior as defined by the dominant society. They tend to be assertive, function as unmarried heads of household, and be convicted for violent person crimes. In short, they epitomize the type of deviant women the criminal legal system is committed to punish (D. K. Lewis, 1981, p. 102). D. K. Lewis’s (1981) work, although reported in the early 1980s, is unfortunately still relevant today. Richie (2012) describes that a significant aspect of racist and classist criminalization has to do with cultural stereotypes that extend less harsh reviews of white, middle-class women and girls’ behaviors and how the media, government, feminist movement, Black communities, and academics have all failed to protest the criminalization of victimized Black women and girls. A government report of youths arrested in the United States in 2003 indicates that the overrepresentation of African Americans was not gendered; they were equally overrepresented among girls and boys (H. N. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). The far-reaching effects of racism and how it

intersects with sexism can be best understood by Richie’s (2006) description of risk factors for substance abuse, and how substance abuse by poor women of Color is responded to by the CLS: Institutional neglect is also indicated as a major risk factor, and given racial and class hierarchy, it follows that women of color from low-income communities are most likely to experience the negative consequences of substance abuse; their treatment needs are not addressed and they are sanctioned by the criminal legal system most harshly. (Richie, 2006, p. 139) It is also important to recognize that social class affects one’s opportunities and can affect treatment by individuals in society in general (e.g., teachers, neighbors, store owners, etc.) and by the police, courts, and so on. Class affects the likelihood that one will turn to crime for survival. Class also impacts a charged person’s ability to afford bail and hire an attorney, practices highly related to conviction and sentencing results. Unfortunately, data gatherers in both official statistics and many self-report studies are either unwilling or unable to account for class differences, so less is documented about this powerful variable. One self-report study on inner-city and suburban youths (arguably a class measure) found suburban girls were the most likely to have tried alcohol and the most likely to have tried marijuana, whereas inner-city boys were the least likely to have tried alcohol and inner-city females were the least likely to have tried marijuana (Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999). Contrary to popular class and race stereotypes, suburban males were most likely to have tried hard drugs, followed distantly by inner-city boys, innercity girls, and suburban girls (respectively). A more recent study points to young people of high-income white families as the most likely to enter adulthood as “secret deviants” who do the most partying but are the least likely to be caught or arrested by officials, whereas African American youths were far more likely to be arrested for similar drinking and drug use behaviors (Hagan & Foster, 2006). Among girls and boys, Whites reported more drinking and drug-using than Latinx and African Americans. Across genders, youths from the wealthiest 25% of the study partied the most, and this was higher for the wealthiest white boys than the wealthiest white girls; youths from the poorest 25% partied the least (Hagan & Foster, 2006). Studies that simultaneously control for race, gender, class, and age often find these are important predictors of offending behavior, as well as treatment by the CLS. Clearly, making simple racial, class, or gender comparisons is less useful than examining their intersections. It is important to emphasize the danger in relying solely on official CLS statistics (e.g., police and court records), in that they may be a better reflection of bias than offending. Researchers should also use self-report surveys and interviews to present a more valid measure of offending. Zimmerman and Messner’s (2010) evaluation of youth self-reported violence in Chicago from 1994 to 2002 found gender convergence as the level of neighborhood disadvantage increased. It is useful to note, though, that police presence is likely much higher in these more disadvantaged neighborhoods, which could explain at least some of this relationship. Zimmerman and Messner also found that youth in more disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to have violent peers, and although boys had more violent peers than girls, peer violence appeared to impact the girls more than the boys. They also found that peer intimacy modified the relationship between peer violence and self-reported violent behavior, which they claim helped explain the greater effect of peer violence on girls’ than boys’ behaviors. Taking Zimmerman and Messner’s (2010) findings in the context of the findings from ethnographic studies of young people of Color in disadvantaged neighborhoods, however, helps to inform on the generalized victimization and violence, racial profiling, and more extreme school interventions these young people face on a daily basis, what it takes to live in such raced and classed disenfranchisement, and what young people need to maintain respect (e.g., N. Jones, 2008; Rios, 2011).

Sexuality and Gender Identity

Schaffner (1999) stresses the need to examine girls’ delinquency by contextualizing their experiences as a means of understanding the decisions girls make. Specifically, she describes how the social, political, and economic sexualizing of female adolescence can result in girls’ harmful framings of their sexuality and role expectations, and she notes how some girls “solve” school, peer, and family problems through sex. Schaffner identifies four ways that the sexualization of girls’ lives can be manifested in delinquency or perceptions of delinquency: (1) girls who are oppositional, resistant, or angry about the stereotypically prescribed gender roles; (2) girls whose empty family lives (abandonment or neglect by parents) result in them ending up with (much) older boyfriends; (3) girls who get “caught” in a homophobic system for exploring lesbian desire; and (4) girls with sexual injury in the form of abuse that results in anger, running away, drug use, and so on. As previously noted, sexual minority status (SMS) is the term most often used in scholarly studies to refer to people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender (abbreviated “trans”), queer, or intersex. Conover-Williams’s (2014) extensive study using Add Health data found that both SMS youths and males were overrepresented in self-reported nonviolent offending, and males disproportionately self-reported violent offending (vis-à-vis females), but the SMS was not always significant in the overall violent offending models. Research on sexual identity and crime is fairly recent and tends to find that SMS (lesbian, gay, bisexual) girls are more likely to be labeled delinquents or arrested than either SMS boys or non-SMS girls, and this is particularly true for SMS girls of Color (Belknap, Holsinger, et al., 2012; ConoverWilliams, 2014; Himmelstein & Brückner, 2011). In the only study examining the impact of gender identity on offending, in a sample of 843 college women, Dolliver (2019) found that in comparison to women with feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated gender identities, the women with masculine identity (18% of the women) were more likely to engage in offending, in general (i.e., academic cheating, minor drug use, and vandalism), and aggression, specifically. Panfil and Peterson (2015) argue that gang research always assumes “a heterosexual male subject as a starting and reference point…. However, gangs and their members are much more diverse than some might assume” (p. 208). But they also note that even male gang scholars publishing in the 1960s reported that some members (7% of African American and 14% of white) “had participated in ‘homosexuality’” (p. 218). Unfortunately, most of the research on gay and bisexual gang members is on boys, and very little is known about gay and bisexual female gang members. An exception is D. E. Johnson’s (2014) work on lesbians forming or becoming members of gangs “both preemptively and in retaliation to [homophobic] harassment” (p. 104). She also notes how “young lesbians of color have always navigated life in the borderlands” and stresses that their resistance to sexual harassment is viewed as an “assault” on the masculinity of the male harassers, whose threats pay “into the fear of the lesbian body[,] specifically the male lesbian body” (p. 107).

Serious Mental Illness (SMI) In the past decade there has been a growing recognition of the strong overlap between offending and serious mental illness (SMI). In 2009, in a study of 822 women and men in five jails in New York and Maryland, Steadman, Osher, Robbins, and Case published their results that women (31.0%) were twice as likely as men (14.5%) to be SMI. A multisite study in the United States confirmed this with findings that 32% of the women met the criteria for SMI (S. M. Lynch et al., 2014). Furthermore, this study found that one quarter of women in the jails met the criteria for SMI, posttraumatic stress disorder, and substance use disorder (S. M. Lynch et al., 2014). Among these jailed women, many of the women met these three criteria for the previous 12 months, and SMI and trauma were associated with the onset of crime. Moreover, the women with SMI were more likely to have experienced trauma, to have run away from home as girls, to have had an earlier onset of substance use disorder, and to be repeat offenders (S. M. Lynch et al., 2014). Notably, one recent study of girls, comparing the behavior problems, family and peer relations, and academic performance of serious (felony) violent offenders, serious

nonviolent offenders, and nondelinquent girls, found no differences among the violent and nonviolent delinquent girls, but the nondelinquent girls reported far fewer of these problems (Borduin & Ronis, 2012). Similarly, a study of incarcerated women found their cumulative victimizations negatively affected their psychosocial functioning and not only increased their likelihood of committing violent crimes (including homicide) but also increased their risks of committing property crimes, drug offenses, and prostitution (DeHart, 2008). Taken together, these studies not only attest to the high rates of SMI among women offenders but also how SMI intersects with offending (and reoffending), substance use, and trauma.

SUMMARY Regardless of how crime data are collected (e.g., police, victimization surveys, selfreport), most offenses are male-gender-related, and the more serious and violent the offense is, the more male-dominated it is (e.g., Hsieh & Schwartz, 2018; Roth & King, 2019; J. Schwartz et al., 2015). According to the most recent (2018) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data, all but 4 of the 24 individual offenses are male-gender-related: Larceny-theft is approaching male-gender-related for combined ages (but malegender-related among youths), embezzlement for combined ages is the only genderneutral offense (it approached male-gender-related among youth), liquor law violations are approaching male-gender-related among youths (and was malegender-related for combined ages), and prostitution/commercialized vice is the only female-gender-related offense, but this is only for combined ages and surprisingly found to be approaching male-gendered-related among youths. This chapter addressed the complexities of determining whether offenses are genderrelated and whether gender convergence is occurring, and if so, whether it is consistent with or antithetical to the women’s liberation/emancipation hypothesis (WLEH). Three steps were provided to help unpack analyses of gender–crime patterns, particularly gender convergence, emphasizing the significance of the type of data (e.g., police arrest, self-report victim, self-report offending) and accounting for economic and social changes as well as policy changes, particularly net-widening policies and practices. The most recent UCR data indicate a convergence in offending for almost every offense, yet they also indicate that almost every offense is still male-gender-related. As one longitudinal study concludes, in terms of offending, “crime—especially in its more serious and lucrative forms—largely remains a man’s world” (Steffensmeier & Schwartz, 2004, p. 106). We will revisit net widening in the next chapter, on the processing of crimes in the criminal legal system (CLS). This chapter also took some specific offenses that are particularly useful to examine through a gendered lens. It was beyond the scope to cover all offenses, but ideally patterns are clear on how things such as intimate partner abuse impact many individuals in terms of both victimization and offending. The next chapter addresses the CLS responses to women and girl offenders. Recent research overwhelmingly confirms that where we see gender convergence, it is at least in part due to harsher responses to girls and women, and most profoundly, to victimized girls and women who are often further marginalized by their race, class, age, sexuality, nationality, and other factors.

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure This illustration shows a triangle with three layers. The lowest layer is in the lightest tone and the text in this layer reads, gender-related; [greater than or equal to symbol] 20.0% gap. The middle layer is in a darker tone and the text in this layer reads, approaching gender-related; 10.1–19.9% gap. The upper layer is in the darkest tone and looks like a small triangle. The text in this layer reads, gender-neutral; [less than or equal to symbol] 10.0% gap. The note below the illustration reads:

Note: For gender-related offenses, when the men/boys have the higher rate the offense is male-gender-related, and when the women/girls have the higher rate the offense is female-gender-related. Back to Figure Each of the four graphs has two trend lines – one for males and another for females. The first graph is labeled gender stability and shows the trend lines for both sexes run almost parallel to each other. The one for males is above that for females. Both trend lines start rising sharply and plateau before they spike and drop a little and then rise again sharply before they flatten out and run parallel to the horizontal axis. The second graph is labeled gender divergence and while the trend lines start on the y axis and both start with a spike before the trend line for males climbs upward to another spike before it plateaus and then climbs again more gradually. The one for females falls after the initial spike and then rises gradually before it plateaus and falls. Both trend lines diverge as they move along the graph plot area from left to right. The trend line for males is above that for females. The third graph is labeled gender convergence and both trend lines start on the y axis and tend to converge as they both rise from left to right. The trend line for females starts close to the bottom of the y axis and the one for males starts past the midpoint on the y axis. The one for males rises slower than that for females and the end close to each other on the right. The fourth graph is labeled no trend. The trend line for males is above that for females on this graph. The trend line for males rises, plateaus and drops again and then has two spikes on the right. The one for females starts with two spikes before it runs parallel to the horizontal axis ad then falls before it rises again.

5 THE CONTEXT OF WOMEN AND GIRLS’ OFFENDING FOR SPECIFIC CRIMES Findings from ethnographic studies of street crime reveal that women involved in street hustles are typically confined to low status, high risk, and low reward criminal opportunities. —Becker and McCorkel (2011, P. 83)

The last chapter discussed the ways crime can be measured, the usefulness of various crime measures, and the assessment of gender patterns at one point in time and over time. This chapter reviews the existing research on the gendered nature of some specific offenses. It is important to remember not only the gendered differences in individuals’ lives that impact their offending (and responses to it by the criminal legal system, schools, families, and so on, which is addressed in Chapter 6) but also how intricately gender intersects with race/ethnicity, sexual identity, class, and other potentially stigmatizing and discriminatory factors (e.g., Conover-Williams, 2014; Panfil, 2017; Richie, 2012). For example, Conover-Williams’s (2014) extensive analysis of the Add Health data found that “sexual minority youth do indeed offend differently from their sexual majority peers, in terms of higher levels (prevalence and frequency) of offending than sexual majority youth; but, they largely participate in the same offenses as their peers, with a few exceptions” (p. 467). Although sexual minority status (SMS) youths “have similar levels of protective factors” as their sexual majority peers, similar to Belknap, Holsinger, and Little (2014), Conover-Williams found SMS youth have higher levels of risk factors for offending than their sexual majority peers, such as worse home and school experiences and higher levels of abuse victimization and homelessness.

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL: SUBSTANCE USE, ABUSE, AND SELLING (SUAS) Substance (alcohol and drug) use, abuse, and selling (SUAS) research is complicated given that some circumstances of use are legal (e.g., alcohol use is legalized by age, marijuana is medically or even recreationally legalized in some states, prescription drugs can be legally and illegally sold and owned) and it can be difficult to distinguish between use, abuse, and addiction. SUAS has historically been conducted on men. Regardless of gender, this research has focused on the most economically and socially disenfranchised. As SUAS research has advanced in scope, including women/girls and the enfranchised, gendered (as well as class and race) distinctions have been found. Notably, “women are the fastest-growing segment of substance users in the United States” (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019, p. 699). At least eight gender differences in SUAS have been documented. First, research consistently finds SUAS is largely male-gender-related for alcohol (Bègue & Roché, 2009; C. A. Green, Freeborn, & Polen, 2001; Hussong, 2000; Kaufman, 2009; Pinhey & Wells, 2007; Svensson, 2003) and most drugs (Payne, 2009; Pinhey & Wells, 2007; Svensson, 2003). Given that the “magnitude of the gender gap, however, is said to vary by stance, life course position, and shifts in control” (Cutler, 2016, p. 1134), the rest of the gender differences to some degree account for these variations. As such, the second gender difference is the disproportionate (sexist) societal and legal disapproval of women and girls’ (relative to men and boys’) substance use, including when it is legal (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019; Haritavorn, 2019; Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999; Maher & Curtis, 1992; Sterk, 1999). The third SUAS gendered distinction is that criminalizing the use of drugs/alcohol while pregnant is an example of a gender-specific law (addressed in the following chapter)—a law that criminalizes one gender/sex. Fourth, some SUAS research documents gender/sex differences in

the body’s response to substances (e.g., gender differences in absorbing and metabolizing) (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019). This has had profound impacts on drivingunder-the-influence of alcohol (DUI) laws, which will be noted in the following chapter. Fifth, women and girls are far more likely than men and boys to be in a position to have to exchange sex and companionship for drugs from a dealer, romantic partner, pimp, or other user, or do sex work to buy drugs (T. Cheng et al., 2019; Inciardi, Lockwood, & Pottieger, 1993; Inciardi, Pottieger, Forney, Chitwood, & McBride, 1991; Lichtenstein, 1997; Maher, Dunlap, Johnson, & Hamid, 1996; Ratner, 1993; N. Rodriguez & Griffin, 2005; Sterk, 1999). Sixth, relative to boys and men, girls and women are more likely to use drugs to “self-medicate” for depression, anger, or trauma (Erickson, Butters, McGillicuddy, & Hallgren, 2000; R. D. Evans, Forsyth, & Gauthier, 2002; Inciardi et al., 1993; Mason, Hitchings, & Spoth, 2007; P. Smith, 2019). Or, as poignantly stated by Haritavorn (2019) from her study on Thai injection drug users in the context of structural violence, “Hence, women using drugs have to find specific ways of dealing with their lives in a social world that constitutes the condition for their suffering” (p. 200). Seventh, women and girls are more likely than men and boys to report using drugs to lose weight (e.g., Cutler, 2016; Strauss & Falkin, 2001), which is also an indication of the social construction of gender in society. Eighth, in general, men and boys use a larger variety of drugs than do women and girls (e.g., Cutler, 2016). Many of these gendered findings will be described in more detail in the remainder of this SUAS section.

Acquiring and Reasons for Trying and Using Substances Research identifies seven gender comparisons, discussed in detail later, regarding individuals’ reasons and means of initiation into and continued use of alcohol and drugs (most research is on drugs). These comparisons include some of the themes addressed in Table 5.1, such as entry into sex work or trading sex for drugs and selfmedicating to cope with trauma, anger, and depression. Other gendered reasons for the use of, and pathways to, drugs include who initiates a person to use drugs, the process and impact of adultification, and the complicated “doing masculinity” in terms of SUAS. First, although some research finds no gender differences in being introduced to drugs, other research claims women and girls are more likely to be introduced to drugs by husbands and boyfriends, whereas men and boys are more likely to be introduced by male friends (R. D. Evans et al., 2002; Inciardi et al., 1993; Lichtenstein, 1997). Moreover, women’s substance abuse can be a result of being in subordinate relationships with abusive partners (Richie, 2006) or, for girls, relationships with older men (Lopez, 2017). But research also suggests that many women and girls are introduced to drugs by girlfriends (Cutler, 2016; Sterk, 1999) and parents (Lopez, 2017; Sterk, 1999). Second, there is some indication that relative to girls and women, boys and men are more likely to use drugs recreationally, for pleasure and thrill-seeking (e.g., Cutler, 2016; Li et al., 2001), and relative to boys and men, girls and women are more likely to both begin and continue the use of drugs to self-medicate against depression and anger (Erickson et al., 2000; R. D. Evans et al., 2002; Inciardi et al., 1993; Mason et al., 2007). Notably, a study of woman crack users found that half started using in response to a traumatic experience or series of traumatic experiences (e.g., death in the family, losing a child, rape) (Erickson et al. 2000). Third is girls’ disproportionate likelihood (relative to boys) of helping their mothers (and sometimes fathers) around the home and with younger siblings (Bottcher, 2001; Carbone-Lopez & Miller, 2012; Lopez, 2017). Specifically, adultification is the process by which girls “prematurely assume adult responsibilities in families.” Given that most delinquent girls grow up in single-mother homes, with “sporadic contact with biological fathers,” they are primarily helping their already over-taxed mothers (Lopez, 2017, p. 47). Lopez’s (2017) powerful book Complicated Lives: Girls, Parents, Drugs, and Juvenile Justice, poignantly and carefully documents both the agency and the struggles of girls involved in the juvenile system, with adultification as a central theme: “Adultified children have few support systems,” so they are playing adult roles, often with younger siblings, with few to no resources (p. 49). Simultaneously, many of these girls (understandably) feel “rejected, abandoned, and unloved” by their fathers, placing them in precarious roles with mythologizing their fathers to explain their abandonment (p. 62). Similarly, Paula Smith’s (2019) study of delinquent girls in Utah

found a significant amount of abandonment by both fathers and mothers, parents who died, and a girl whose mother sold her into prostitution. This is not to say that these girls’ parents were all terrible. Lopez (2017) is careful to identify the ways that they were good parents in many difficult circumstances (e.g., extreme poverty, fathers being deported to Mexico), but she does so without excusing some of the parenting. The disadvantages linked with adultification place these girls at significant risk of “looking for love in the wrong places” and involvement in drugs. Girls with histories of drug-addicted mothers are at risk of disrupted relationships with their mothers, running away, becoming involved with much older boys and men, and alcohol/drug use and drug-selling (Carbone-Lopez & Miller, 2012; Lopez, 2017; Ryder & Brisgone, 2013). Table 5.1 ● Lopez, Jurik, and Gilliard-Matthew’s Identification of Girls’ Strategies for Meth Procurement

Based on lengthy interviews with eighteen 14- to 17-year-old girls incarcerated in Arizona. Eight girls were Latina, eight were white, and two were biracial Latina/African American. Five girls reported having a same-sex romantic relationship while in the juvenile facility, but only one girl identified as lesbian, one as bisexual, and the remaining sixteen as straight. Strategy

Description

N1

1. Daughter–Father Relationships: Ingratiating Oneself to Adult Male Drug Dealers

Older male drug dealers whom they viewed as “fathers” or “caretakers” (not boyfriends) with whom they had a subordinate relationship, introduced them to or became their main suppliers

12

2. Dating Relationships With Older Men: Providing Companionship, Sex, and Other Duties

Romantic relationships to acquire meth, all girls were 12 to 15 years old and all men were adults (although closer in age to the girls in the above category). Girls did not feel subordinate; they felt agency/power from the relationship.

7

3. Teenage Girls and “Conning” boys into giving them meth or money by Boys: Using the flirting with them without doing anything physically Allure of Sex sexual

6

4. Working Together With Boys and Men: Participating in Criminal Enterprises

Committing crimes (e.g., theft, robbery) with boys or men to purchase meth

3

5. Engaging in Sex Work for Pimps

Doing sex work to buy meth. Even here a girl reported 2 some agency, despite pimp’s control, in creating the illusion of intercourse, when male client’s penis was between her thighs (not in her vagina).

6. Going It Alone

Committing a crime for meth (e.g., selling drugs, theft), but as the lead person or on her own

2

1Strategies

are listed in order of their frequency reported by the girls. Girls could report more than one strategy, so this adds up to more than 18. Source: Lopez, V., Jurik, N., & Gilliard-Matthews, S. (2009). Gender, sexuality, power and drug acquisition strategies among adolescent girls who use meth. Feminist Criminology, 4(3), 226–251.

Fourth, research reports that boys and men’s alcohol and drug use are often motivated by means of “doing masculinity” (e.g., Cutler, 2016; R. D. Evans et al., 2002). Similarly, girls and women’s SUAS may also be a form of resistance; some girls and women report using drugs to “act out” against their parents, teachers, and sexist societal roles (Friedman & Alicea, 1995; Sterk, 1999). Similarly, Lopez (2009, p. 226) and her colleagues identified six “meth” procurement strategies, among 14- to 17-year-old girls, in “crafting their own version of femininity” to obtain meth on the streets (reported in Table 5.1). Perusing them, the social construction of gender is evident, but also the complicated manners in which the girls are resilient and find agency while they are simultaneously highly marginalized. Similarly, despite the horrific lives many researchers describe of crack-addicted women, some also find empowering aspects, including Maher (1997): “As it turns out, the women I studied were remarkable in many ways, but perhaps most of all for their resilience, their capacity for the hardest of labors, and the sheer tenacity of the struggles to survive” (p. x).

Type of Substance Abused This section covers some but not all drugs, primarily the ones with more research and more consistent gender findings. Notably, most chemical dependency experts consider alcohol as a drug, and it is treated as such in this book.

Alcohol. Among both adolescents and adults, alcohol use is a male-gender-related behavior (Bègue & Roché, 2009; C. A. Green et al., 2001; Hussong, 2000; Kaufman, 2009; Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999; D. E. Olson, Lurigio, & Seng, 2000; Van Gundy, Schieman, Kelley, & Rebellon, 2005), although among college students, women are more likely than men to binge drink (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019). Girls are more likely than boys to report their first experience with alcohol and their first experience with drugs as coinciding with the first time they had sex, while boys are more likely than girls to report they had sex before the first time they used alcohol or drugs (Li et al., 2001). Among youth, research indicates that African American girls and boys drink less alcohol than white youth (Bilchik, 1999; Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999) and Latinx youth (Bilchick 1999). One of the few studies of women’s alcohol use during pregnancy found a strong relationship between risky drinking during pregnancy and marital separation, major financial difficulties, and serious arguments with family members (Esper & Furtado, 2019).

Marijuana/Cannabis. “Cannabis is the most widely used illicit substance worldwide” (Lev-Ran et al., 2012, p. 190) Legalization of medical and recreational use of marijuana growing in the United States has made it more accessible and having more legitimately “perceived benefits, such as relaxation and stress relief” (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019, p. 703). A study based on Uniform Crime Report (UCR), self-report, and census data found no gender difference in the self-reported likelihood of whether individuals used marijuana; however, men and boys who used it smoked it more days per week than did women and girls who used it (H. Nguyen & Reuter, 2012). A recent review of this research stated that men “use cannabis more frequently and more excessively than women” (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019, p. 703). Notably, there is very limited research on the effect of marijuana use during pregnancy (p. 704).

Methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine, or “meth,” gained popularity in the 1990s. Women methamphetamine users are predominantly white, are unmarried, started using in their late teens, and typically used alcohol and marijuana prior to using methamphetamine (Carbone-Lopez & Miller, 2012; Cutler, 2016; Strauss & Falkin, 2001). The three most common reasons women and girls give for using meth are (1) because close friends or partners did (28%), (2) to “party” (27%), and (3) to “get high” (Strauss & Falkin, 2001). Notably, though, 13% started using it to lose weight, 9% to get things done, and 6% to “feel better”; and 70% of the women had been involved in selling, manufacturing, and/or distributing methamphetamine (Strauss & Falkin, 2001).

Nonmedical Prescription Drugs (NMPDs). Notably, nonmedical prescription drug (NMPD) use is a crime with little or no gender gap, and even some indication that it is female-crime related (Cutler, 2016; Lopez et al., 2009). This might be because women and girls disproportionately visit doctors (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019; Cutler, 2016) and are disproportionately diagnosed with certain conditions (e.g., anxiety, sleep, and depressive disorders) compared with men and boys (Cutler, 2016, p. 1135). Women’s increase in opioid overdose deaths has been at a far steeper slope than men’s since 1999, and at least in part, this may be due to women being more likely to have chronic pain and therefore “are prescribed opioids at higher doses and longer-term use compared to men” (Ait-Daoud et al., 2019, p. 701). In Cutler’s (2016) qualitative study of white college students’ NMPD use, three fifths (60.5%) were men, two fifths (41%) were in the Greek system, and almost a third (30%) lived on campus. Cutler found gender similarities regarding the most frequently misused NMPDs (i.e., Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Vyvanse, promethazine, and codeine). Among both females and males, friends were the primary source of acquiring and learning how and why to use NMPDs, and the primary incentive was to improve academically. In turn, because NMPDs were normalized across many campus students and students were using them for “betterment” goals, the NMPD users saw their use as legitimate/nondeviant and safe. Indeed, many linked their academic success to their NMPD use (Cutler, 2016, p. 1140). The gender differences in NMPD use that Cutler (2016) found included men being more “open and forthcoming,” and in some cases, “arrogant” about their NMPD use; less likely to indicate guilt or remorse about NMPD use; and more risk-taking in terms of engaging in risky behaviors, pushing their limits, and mixing “copious amounts” of NMPDs or NMPDs with other drugs or alcohol (pp. 1140–1141). However, some men recognized lethal dangers and that they had addictions and were scared. Women had fewer NMPD “wild stories,” felt guiltier/more remorseful, and engaged in less risky behaviors. However, women were more likely than men to justify NMPD use by citing its legitimacy because others do it, doctors prescribe it to some people, and even that they were helping their friends or family members by giving them NMPDs, even in cases where it was clear some of these people were dangerously using NMPDs (p. 1142). Turning to the sexist body-image culture discussed in previous chapters, both men and women talked about women’s disproportionate use of Adderall to lose weight (pp. 1144–1145).

Crack. The advent of crack intensified the sexual degradation of women (Maher, 1995) and resulted in an intensive and “successful” media and criminal legal system “campaign” against primarily poor, African American women replete with racist, sexist, and classist caricatures and misinformation about crack and its consumers (S. C. Boyd, 1999, 2004; Humphries, 1999; Maher, 1997, 2004). Maher’s (1997) classic ethnographic fieldwork with women crack users in the early 1990s in three Brooklyn (New York) neighborhoods reports that income generation within the street-level economy falls into three overlapping and interdependent options: drug-business hustles, nondrug hustles, and sex work. Maher reports that “sex work was the only income-generating activity consistently available to women drug users” (p. 130), and given the risks of “death, rape, and disfigurement” that the sex work entailed, “suggests that overall these women had few [income-generating] choices indeed” (p.

189). Similarly, Erickson and colleagues’ (2000) study of women on crack reported how the women’s addictions “magnified their extreme vulnerability arising from conditions of poverty, arrest histories, loss of family, exposure to violence, and histories of sexual abuse” (p. 769). Both studies (Erickson et al., 2000; Maher, 1997), however, resist simplistic characterizations of these women. Maher (1995) challenges the research presentation of female drug users as “innocent” and “hapless victims,” often lured into both drug use and sex work. “Such accounts perpetuate stereotypical images of women as weak and submissive; as incapable of exercising agency and unable to make any kind of choice in relation to drug use” (p. 132). Erickson and colleagues (2000) note most of these women did not see stopping crack use as an option, and most did not identify their addiction as a problem. Rather, crack was what made their lives bearable or interesting, and sex was the means to smoking crack. Claire E. Sterk (1999) offers one of the most detailed and comprehensive studies of crack-using women in her ethnographic research on 149 active crack-using women. Her book Fast Lives describes far more variation among these women than is reported in other studies. Sterk identified four categories of crack-using women. Her first category, queens of the scene, had the highest status and the most control over their lives (relative to other crack-cocaine-using women) due to their ability to cook powder cocaine to form crack. Such cooking skills (the irony of this gendered job was not lost on the women) allowed these women access to the upper- and mid-level dealers, who also protected them. In addition to the “queens,” Sterk’s three other categories of women crack cocaine users were the hustlers, who “work” as criminals but not sex workers to support their habits (e.g., stealing cars, pickpocketing, etc.); the hookers, who use sex work (prostitution) to support their habits; and the older struggling rookies, who had no history of drug-using or other illegal activities until their 30s (or later) and were typically unemployed, concerned with social approval, and introduced to crack cocaine by their children. Sterk also reports that the existing research and media representations portraying crack cocaine as an aphrodisiac are misleading in the sense that for both men and women over time, the crack addiction and work to support the addiction result in decreased sexual activity.

Selling/Dealing Drugs The limited research examining gender differences in selling drugs indicates that it is much tougher for women than men to break into the drug market (Maher & Daly, 1996; Ryder & Brisgone, 2013), and they do so more easily for lower-level drugs, particularly marijuana. Some research contends that women who successfully gain access to drug selling do so through their husbands or boyfriends (Koester & Schwartz, 1993; Maher & Curtis, 1992). Women’s drug selling may be a better indication of the feminization of poverty than of women’s increased drug use (DíazCotto, 1996). More specifically, not all women drug dealers use drugs, but selling drugs is one of the few options many poor women have to make money (Díaz-Cotto, 1996). However, drug addiction can also spin someone into economic marginalization even if she was not in poverty prior to her drug use (see Maher, 1995). Given the connection between women and girls’ crack addiction and trading sex for crack, the advent of crack flooded the streets with new sex workers and thus street sex workers’ pay decreased drastically (Maher & Curtis, 1992; Maher & Daly, 1996). Lisa Maher’s (1995) study of street prostitutes who did not have pimps but exchanged sex for money to support their crack use perceived themselves as independent, despite the disempowerment and male dependence they experienced with street drug dealers and users. Similar to the pimps, the drug dealers took most of the women’s money. Similarly, Lauderback, Hansen, and Waldorf (1992) reported that after continued dissatisfaction with the division of labor and profits from their boyfriends’ crack-selling ventures, a group of young African American women formed a gang and entered into the crack-selling business themselves.

The Links Between SUAS and Other Crimes

As stated, for women and girls, drug addiction is often related to trading sex for drugs (Erickson et al., 2000; Inciardi et al., 1991, 1993; Lichtenstein, 1997; Maher, 1997; Maher et al., 1996; Ratner, 1993; Sterk, 1999), but it is also a risk factor for other types of offending, such as burglary and robbery (S. Decker, Wright, Redfern, & Smith, 1993; Kuhns, Blevins, Bolin, & Cambareri, 2017; J. Miller, 1998; Richie, 2006; Sommers & Baskin, 1994). One study found that drug-using women prisoners reported a greater likelihood than their non-drug-using counterparts of engaging in a wide variety of both property and violent crimes, emphasizing the criminalizing aspect of drug addictions for women (Mullings, Pollock, & Crouch, 2002). A study of women using hard drugs with men reported subsequent “drug-related criminal activities, including check fraud and drug sales, but particularly prostitution” (Ryder & Brisgone, 2013, p. 49).

THEFT, BURGLARY, AND ROBBERY The three primary property crimes are typically ranked from most to least serious as robbery, burglary, and larceny-theft, and the percentage of women and girls arrested for each is 15%, 20%, and 42%, respectively, consistent with the pattern that the more serious the offense is, the lower women and girls’ representation will be (see Table 4.1 in Chapter 4 and Table 5.1).

Description

Figure 5.1 ● Percentage of Arrests for Larceny/Theft, Burglary, and Robbery in 2018 by Sex Source: U.S. Department of Justice. (2019). Crime in the United States, 2018: Uniform Crime Reports, Table 42. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topicpages/tables/table-42

Theft Property offenses of a minor nature have often been attributed as female-genderrelated, with stereotypes linking women and girls with shopping and portraying them as being tempted by clothes, jewelry, and makeup. A closer examination suggests that shoplifting may be gender-neutral or even male-gender-related. Studies published in the 1980s identified larceny and thefts, such as forgery, counterfeiting, fraud, and embezzlement, as constituting considerable numbers of females’ arrests and convictions but still identified these offenses as male-gender-related (Eaton, 1986; Leonard, 1982). Some studies on shoplifting have found no gender differences (Hudson, 1989; Smart, 1976), but far more have found that shoplifting is male-

gender-related (Buckle & Farrington, 1984; Hirtenlehner & Treiber, 2017; Mawby, 1980; N. L. Piquero, Gover, MacDonald, & Piquero, 2005), and that men and boys steal more items and items of greater value than the food and clothing typically shoplifted by females (Buckle & Farrington, 1984; Gibbens & Prince, 1962; HoffmanBustamante, 1973). Similarly, the 2018 UCR arrest rates reported in Table 4.1 in the previous chapter indicated embezzlement as the only gender-neutral offense and larceny-theft as approaching male-gender-related for youth but solidly male-genderrelated for combined ages. Research since the 1970s suggests that larceny and theft rates show more gender convergence than any other crimes (e.g., Chilton & Datesman, 1987; Kline, 1993). Notably, a study on arrests found women’s arrest rate growth was particularly evident among African American women, coinciding with the feminization of poverty (Chilton & Datesman 1987), and a study of habitual/career criminals, found women were significantly more likely than men to be arrested for forgery and fraud (Delisi, 2002). J. J. Roth and King’s (2019) aggregate-level study of larceny arrests found that unemployment, income, and drug arrest rates significantly impacted women and men, but women more so. They concluded that across gender, “larceny is more likely to occur (or be detected by law enforcement or witnesses) in areas with lower unemployment and incomes” (p. 123).

Burglary Research on burglary consistently finds it male-gender-related and the 2018 UCR data reported four fifths (81%) of burglary arrests were of men and boys (see Figure 5.1). In one of the few studies on burglary and gender, Decker and his colleagues (1993) drew on over a hundred interviews with burglars and found men were more likely to commit additional crimes on top of the burglary (at the same incident), to start their “burglary careers” at a younger age, and to have committed more burglaries than women. Women burglars were more likely to co-offend and to report having a drug addiction (there was no gender difference in using drugs) (S. Decker et al., 1993). Kuhns and his colleagues’ (2017) large study of burglars found women reported more drug use and that their burglaries were “primarily motivated by their drug use,” and men were more likely to get arrested for the robberies they committed (p. 116). Using the same data set, Mullins and Wright (2003) found regardless of gender, most burglars were initiated into this crime with “older friends, family members or street associates,” but men were more likely recruited by male peers, whereas women and girls were more likely recruited through boyfriends (p. 819). Moreover, female respondents were more worried about what their families would think about them. Roth and King’s (2019) recent aggregate UCR study on larceny referenced earlier also studied burglary and found “unemployment” had the biggest impact on both genders’ burglary arrests, and drug arrests were also related to both genders’ burglary rates. Both income and percentage of Black people in the neighborhood predicted women’s, but not men’s, burglary, but contrary to hypotheses, a greater percentage of Black women and lower median income both significantly decreased women’s burglary rates.

Robbery Research on robbery consistently finds it highly male-gender-related; indeed, 85% of the 2018 UCR arrests were of men and boys. Ira Sommers and Baskin’s (1994) indepth study of young women robbers found two thirds of the women reported the robbery occurring in the course of and subsequent to other crimes, such as prostitution, drug-dealing, nonviolent theft, and fraud. Most of the robberies were spontaneous and not planned. Regarding motivations to rob, 89% reported committing the robbery to obtain money, with four fifths of those stating that it was money for drugs and the remaining one fifth wanting the money for clothes, jewelry, and electronic equipment. About 10% reported their motivation was loyalty to friends, vengeance, or the excitement. Notably, however, for many of these women, their early robberies were not motivated by financial desires, but their subsequent robberies were financial, usually to buy drugs. Almost three quarters of their victims were strangers, chosen because they looked weak or vulnerable. These young women were equally likely to rob other women as rob men, but they were less likely to use a weapon if their victim was a woman. Sommers and Baskin’s (1993) findings are also interesting in terms of agency and co-offending: “From early on” in their

offending, the women “reported that they acted out of self-determination and not in concert with or for boyfriends” (p. 149). They co-offended about two thirds of the time, 60% were committed with other women, and if with men, “they did so most often as equal partners” (p. 149). J. Miller’s (1998) robbery ethnography found overall gender similarities in motivations to rob: to get money, primarily for status or material goods (e.g., jewelry), and to a lesser degree to support a drug addiction, and less often, for the thrill of it or for revenge. Young men were more likely to report the pressure to have their own money and to own status goods. Far more gender differences existed in carrying out the robbery. Men used primarily one method to rob: “physical violence and/or a gun placed on or at close proximity to the victim in a confrontational manner” (p. 47). Women, on the other hand, were more eclectic, reporting three strategies. The primary strategy was targeting female victims (71%), but they also worked with men (friends, relatives, or boyfriends) to rob men (50%), and in a third strategy promised men sexual favors for money but did not “deliver” (50%). The latter is similar to Maher’s (1997) “viccing,” which refers to a type of robbery specific to sex workers who rob their clients. Maher and Curtis (1992) view viccing as motivated by sex workers’ frustration with the devaluation of their work and their bodies and their extreme vulnerability to victimization. Rennison and Melde’s (2014) unique approach to studying robbery relied on 4,660 robbery victims’ accounts from 1993 to 2011 NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) data. Four fifths (80%) of robbers were men/boys, one tenth (10%) women/girls, and 5% included both genders (the remaining 5% were unknown). Men/boys robbing alone or together (25%) were 12 times as likely to use guns as women/girls robbing alone or together (2%), and almost twice as likely as mixedgender robberies (15%) to use guns. For both women/girls (62%) and men/boys (65%), over four fifths of the time their victims were their same gender. Rennison and Melde (2014) are the first to take on the inconsistency of robbers wanting to pick easy victims: Robbers (especially men) see women as easy victims, and yet these victim reports indicate a third of men robbers’ victims were women/girls. And men/boys are far less likely to rob women/girls when co-offending with other men/boys, suggesting the masculinity pressure of male peers (p. 290). Male offenders have suggested that females are likely to carry less cash, and thus robbing them is less profitable. Perhaps more importantly, there is a social stigma associated with males using force against females, and thus males receive no status enhancement for engaging in such behaviors. In fact, doing so may lose social standing for males. (Rennison & Melde, 2014, p. 291)

WHITE-COLLAR CRIMES (WCCS) “The gendered structure of white-collar crime is, perhaps, the least studied topic in the field of criminology” (Dodge, 2013, p. 197).1 Kathleen Daly’s (1989) classic study of WCC convictions in U.S. federal courts was the first feminist analysis to dissect what appeared as a gender-neutral offense in much of the research, and still often does when simply looking at percentages. Daly’s (1989) study found that women constituted 45% of bank embezzlement convictions, but less than one fifth of the convicted offenders in the remaining WCCs (18% of postal fraud, 15% of credit fraud, 15% of false claims, 6% of tax fraud, 5% of bribes, 2% of security frauds, and 0.5% of anti-trust crimes). Moreover, when she closely analyzed the these seemingly WCCs, she not only found major gender differences in WCC offenders, but also concluded that many of the women’s WCCs should not have been charged as WCCs because they were usually employed as clerical workers (men were usually employed as managers and administrators); most (60%) of the convicted embezzlers were bank tellers (only 14% of men embezzlers were tellers); their financial gains were significantly smaller (probably because their offenses were pettier and their share of

co-offending WCCs were much smaller); and they were more likely to report “family need” as motivating their offense (Daly, 1989). 1

Theft was addressed earlier, and WCC is theft, but it deserves its own section given the women’s liberation/emancipation hypothesis (WLEH) and assumptions about women’s financial and other “equalities.” More recent research confirms many of Daly’s (1989) findings. A corporate crime study confirmed there are still far fewer opportunities for women, relative to men, to commit corporate crime, which is one reason they were only 9% of the defendants (Steffensmeier et al., 2013). A National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) study concluded that women’s larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement arrests involved small financial gains, were primarily misdemeanors or low-level felony charges (not WCCs), and were disproportionately shoplifting, bad checks, and welfare/benefit fraud (men’s were disproportionately theft from motor vehicles, transportation fraud, and counterfeiting) (Steffensmeier, Harris, & Painter-Davis, 2015). Kristy Holtfreter (2005) conducted an analysis of three occupational fraud offenses (to determine if occupational fraud is a “typical” WCC): (1) asset misappropriation (theft or misuse of an organization’s assets), (2) corruption (employees wrongfully using their influence in business transactions to obtain benefits for themselves that were contrary to duties to their employer), and (3) fraudulent statements (falsification of the organization’s records or documents). Like Daly (1989), Holtfreter found that the less serious WCCs (in terms of dollar loss), asset misappropriation and corruption, were equally likely to be committed by women and men. However, fraudulent statements (the more serious offenses) were distinctly linked to being male, being educated, and holding a higher-level position in the organization, and thus more consistent with WCC. A 2019 Pennsylvania court “low-level” WCC study reported that women constituted 42% (Cassidy & Gibbs, 2019), and both a 2012 Florida felony “low-level” WCC study (Van Slyke & Bales, 2013) and a 2019 U.S. sentencing study (Testa, 2019) reported that women constituted 49% of WCC offenders. This might indicate a converging gender gap, at least for “lower-level” WCCs, but it could also mean these researchers were using data with the same or similar problems as Daly’s (1989) data, which require further parsing to determine whether these are truly WCCs. Many mainstream criminologists have stressed, often without mentioning gender, that WCC research needs to distinguish between occupational crime and white-collar crime (Clinard & Quinney, 1973), and account for the seriousness of victimization and the organizational complexity (station), instead of lumping truly serious WCCs with petty offenses, such as low-level bank tellers pilfering small amounts of money at work (Reese & McDougal, 2018; Weisburd & Waring, 2001). WCC is still a male-related crime, indeed a white-male-related crime, due to white men’s overrepresentation in position and opportunity in the elite corporate, political, and economic world (see Dodge, 2013, p. 198, for this explanation regarding gender, but not race). As noted in the previous chapter, embezzlement, typically considered a white-collar crime was the only solidly gender-neutral offense in the 2018 UCR data. As Dodge (2013) explains, women have “flourished” in embezzlement “due to lowlevel occupations such as bookkeepers, bank tellers, or secretaries who have access to company funds,” women who are not exactly in high-paying positions themselves (p. 200).

SEX WORK AND PROSTITUTION Recall that in Table 4.1, prostitution was the only female-gender-related offense in the 2018 UCR. Feminist scholars and activists frequently struggle with not “othering” sex workers and not denying their agency, as well as the criminalization of sex work (for adults). Notably, most of the activists are sex workers, and they, as well as many feminist activists and scholars who are not sex workers, increasingly use the labels “sex work” and “sex workers” in lieu of “prostitution” and “prostitutes,” but the criminal legal system and many others, including many sex workers, also or predominantly use the terms “prostitution” and “prostitutes.” Updegrove, Muftic, and Niebuhr (2019) provide one of the most recent and best quantitative sex work/prostitution studies,

p q p distinguishing between three prostitution roles: sellers (ones performing the sexual act for a fee), buyers (ones purchasing the sexual act), and facilitators (sex work where a person arranges between the buyer and seller and benefits financially from the sex work). Men/boys were 23% of the sellers, 77% of the facilitators, and 97% of the buyers. Notably, the sellers averaged 33 years older and the buyers 40 years older than the sellers (sex workers) (p. 1601). Conover-Williams’s (2014) extensive Add Health data study examining self-reported offenses found the greatest difference in SMS and non-SMS offending was SMS youth were far more likely to report trading sex for money, and this was significantly higher for males than females, but they found no race/ethnicity differences. Prostitution is often considered a “vice” or “victimless” offense (many sex workers would disagree, and many would agree, with this categorization). Individuals who do sex work do it primarily for the money. While this is not always for survival, it often is. Along with women’s property and financial offending, sex work offenses appear to be highly correlated with the feminization of poverty. A recent study found “correlates of sex trading status included age, lifetime injection drug use, lower education, child sexual abuse, and unstable housing” (A. A. Jones et al., 2019, p. 15). An example of this is “sugar babies,” whereby a company is specifically interested in recruiting women college students to be paid companions for (primarily) older men. Although the website for this claims it is not prostitution/sex work, it is clear many of the young women do exchange sex for money and/or other perks (thus fitting most legal definitions of prostitution), so that they can do things such as pay college tuition (Hernandez, 2016; Rosman, 2018). Frederick (2014) details the intricate interconnections among SMS young people with sex work, homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health: “Involvement in sex work can feed back into drug use by involving youth in drug using milieus, as well as through the use of drugs to cope with the stress and trauma of sex work” (p. 481). But at the same time that we need to recognize such young people’s vulnerability, Frederick also urges an emphasis on their “diversity of experience, and the opportunities that street life holds for finding acceptance and belonging” (p. 473). Bachman, Rodriguez, Kerrison, and Leon’s (2019) intensive interviews with druginvolved women released from Delaware prisons, who had an average of 16 arrests each, reported that “their criminal records prevented them from obtaining legitimate employment” resulting in nearly half of them in “survival prostitution,” living in fear of “dying on the street” (p. 587). Shdaimah and Leon’s (2015) powerful ethnographic and qualitative work on sex workers in Baltimore and Philadelphia, also described their participants as “engaged in survival prostitution”: We found a nuanced picture of moral and rational choice-making in an extremely circumscribed universe of options. Women faced limited economic and social opportunities, and prostitution provided a means to sustain themselves. Our respondents were also influenced by their family and relational ties in ways that made prostitution a logical choice. Sometimes, this was through coercive relationships, in which women were pressured to engage in prostitution by parents or partners. On other occasions, it was a chosen means to help support family members, including sick relatives and children. (Shdaimah & Leon, 2015, p. 330) Almost one in ten had been sexually assaulted, including extensive child sexual abuse, and 29% had been sexually assaulted during sex work. The participants reported their further denial of agency once caught up in “the system,” where their main goal was not staying or being incarcerated, and they used agency to resist and self-advocate (Shdaimah & Leon, 2015, p. 332).

AGGRESSION AND ASSAULT A study examining the context of assaults committed by 65 violent women offenders reported that the motivations were often aggressive responses to aggression from those designated as their victims (Sommers & Baskin, 1993). “These women are not

roaming willy-nilly through the streets engaging in ‘unprovoked’ violence. They are frequently thrust in violence-prone situations in which the victim enters into it as an active participant, shares the actor’s role, and becomes functionally responsible for it” (Sommers & Baskin, 1993, p. 154). However, the respondents’ aggression was typically more aggressive than that of their victims. The authors describe these women as primarily associated with others involved in crime, who become increasingly socially and psychologically alienated from conventional life (p. 156). These women’s assaults were described as “often impulsive and unorganized,” frequently involving weapons and occurring when they were intoxicated (p. 152). One fifth of the assaults were planned, and these usually involved vengeance, “either related to money or false accusations” (p. 152). Fourteen percent of the assaults were related to drug-dealing. A study of youth arrests found no gender differences in being victims of either simple or aggravated assaults, but girls were more likely to perpetrate simple assaults and boys were more likely arrested for aggravated assaults (Tisak, Tisak, Baker, & Graupensperger, 2019). An analysis of three decades of NIBRS data (1985–2015) found that all-or-solely-male-perpetrated aggravated assaults (26%) were almost twice as likely as all-or-solely-female-perpetrated aggravated assaults (15%) to be of intimates/family, while all-or-solely-male-perpetrated aggravated assaults (30%) were almost 3 times as likely as all-or-solely-female-perpetrated aggravated assaults (11%) to be of strangers (J. Schwartz et al., 2015). Notably, aggravated assaults committed by all-or-solely-male perpetrators (69%) were 6 times as likely as those committed by all-or-solely-female perpetrators (11%), so men/boys are still committing even aggravated assaults against intimates/family far more often than women/girls. The percentage of aggravated assaults with acquaintance victims did not vary much by gender (64% of all-or-solely-female-perpetrated and 56% all-or-solely-maleperpetrated). Mixed-gender-perpetrated aggravated assault victims were 50% intimates/family, 38% acquaintances, and 12% strangers. Finally, among aggravated assault incidents, those with all-or-solely-male perpetrators (29%) were 5 times as likely as those with all-or-solely-female perpetrators (6%) to use guns, and 15% of mixed-gender-perpetrated robberies used guns (J. Schwartz et al., 2015). Another analysis of 2010 NIBRS data on juvenile assaults found that three quarters (74.2%) were simple assaults and most had no or minor injuries (97.4%) (Vaughan, Pollock, & Vandiver, 2015). However, these were gendered: 7.5% of girls’ and 11.2% of boys’ assaults were classified as aggravated (as opposed to simple) assaults (Vaughan et al., 2015). Boys’ assaults were more injurious than girls’ assaults, and boys were 12 times more likely than girls to use a firearm. One of the main gender differences in these juvenile assaults was the victim–offender relationship: Boys were 6 times more likely than girls to assault a boy or man, twice as likely to offend against someone under age 13 (as opposed to 25 to 44 years old) and somewhat more likely than girls to assault individuals closer in age, “especially acquaintances and boyfriends or girlfriends” (Vaughan et al., 2015, p. 30). Girls were more likely to assault “older family members, especially parents and stepparents” (p. 30).

CHILD ABDUCTIONS/KIDNAPPINGS Child abductions are often sensationalized in the media, but only when the children are white (e.g., the Lindbergh baby, Megan Kanka, Polly Klaas, Amber Hagerman). The 1970s and 1980s served as an abduction epidemic moral panic, “entrenched [with] a perception of ‘stranger danger’” (J. A. Walsh, Krienert, & Comens, 2016, p. 21). Analyzing 19 years (1995–2013) of NIBRS child abduction incidents (N = 14,161 incidents and 29,293 victims), J. A. Walsh and colleagues (2016) found these were highly gendered and only 16% were perpetrated by strangers. Abductors were predominantly men (72%) and white (65%). Victims were predominantly 12 to 17 years old (51%), girls (64%), and white (68%). The most common victim–offender relationship (VOR) was family (48%), followed by acquaintance (27%), stranger (16%), and intimate partner (9%). Notably, the authors report that “family” abductors were usually parents of the victim (and usually fathers), and the intimate partner VOR was where the victim (was 17 or younger) and offender were currently or formerly in an intimate relationship as spouses or girlfriend/boyfriends (2% were same-sex couples). Intimate partner abductors were 98% men and all (100%) victims were girls

(under 18). The authors describe the intimate partner abductions as “an extreme form of dating violence perpetrated by young males against young females” (J. A. Walsh et al., 2016, p. 37). Although they inform us that a victim was murdered in 28% and sexually abused in 14% of the incidents, unfortunately, these variables are not broken down by VOR. It is also unfortunate the authors did not further break down the “family” perpetrator data, that is, how many were mothers and fathers. Although men were overwhelmingly the abductors, when women were abductors, over fourth fifths of the time (82%) they were “family members” (seemingly usually mothers) of the victims, whom the authors note “are not motivated by intent to harm the victim, but rather to protect the child from perceived harm or to emotionally harm the other parent” (p. 31). There are certainly cases where mothers have “kidnapped” their children when the courts failed to protect them from an abusive father (Kutner, 2016; Neustein, Lesher, & Felder, 2005).

HOMICIDES An analysis of 48 countries found that women commit about 8% of homicides (Agha, 2009). Researchers estimate that 10% to 20% of all homicides in the United States are committed by women, but evidence suggests that women’s “share” of homicides has halved, closer to the 10% rate, since the 1990s. The percentage of female homicide arrests was 17% in 1960 (Steffensmeier, 1993), decreasing since the early 1980s (Fox & Zawitz, 2010), to 10% in 1990 (Gauthier & Bankston, 1997; Steffensmeier, 1993) where it has largely stayed (J. A. Fox & Fridel, 2017; J. A. Fox & Zawitz, 2010; Fridel & Fox, 2019).2 As previously noted, however, in 2018 women and girls’ portion was slightly higher, at 12%, but there were almost identical decreases in women/girls’ (58%) and men/boys’ (59%) homicide arrests from 2009 to 2018 (Table 4.1, Chapter 4). A study of U.S. homicides from 1976 to 2017 found (1) nine tenths (90%) of perpetrators are men and four fifths (81%) of victims are men; (2) men (30%) are more involved in felony murders than women (20%); (3) half of male (49%) and 35% of female homicide offenders are younger than 25; (4) African Americans are more overrepresented among both male homicide victims and offenders than among female victims and offenders; (5) males use guns (72%) more than females (51%) in homicides; (6) in multiple victim incidents, women’s victimizations are typically where her current or former partner kills her and their children; (7) in multiple victim incidents, male victims are almost twice as likely as female victims to be killed in gang warfare or drug-trafficking violence (Fridel & Fox, 2019). 2

An analysis of NIBRS data found 81% of intimate partner homicides were perpetrated by men (Addington & Perumean-Chaney, 2014), but NIBRS data are not yet considered as representative of the United States as UCR data. An analysis of 2005 NIBRS data found that four fifths (79%) of homicides were all-orsolely-male-perpetrated, one fifth (20%), were mixed-gender-group homicides, and only 1% were all-or-solely-female-perpetrated (J. Schwartz et al., 2015). Mixedgender-perpetrated homicide victims were 60% strangers and 36% acquaintances.3 Among homicide incidents, the largest category of VOR was acquaintance (51% of all-or-solely-male perpetrated, 50% for all-or-solely-female perpetrated, and 52% of mixed-gender perpetrators). When women killed alone or with other women, the VOR was next most likely intimate/family (34%) and least likely strangers (17%), whereas when groups of men or single men alone killed, after acquaintances the VOR next most likely was strangers (43%) and only 6% were intimate/family. For mixed-gender groups, the VOR was divided between intimate/family (24%) and stranger (24%) (other than the 52% of acquaintance VOR homicides). Finally, among homicide incidents, those with all-male perpetrators (77%) were twice as likely as those allfemale perpetrators (36%) to use guns (and 49% of mixed-gender groups used guns) (J. Schwartz et al., 2015). 3

Only 1% of all-male perpetrated, 3% of all-female perpetrated, and 5% of mixedgender perpetrated robberies were of romantic intimates or family.

The remainder of this section will specifically address intimate partner homicide and filicide, given their strongly gendered characteristics and connection to intimate partner abuse. But it is also necessary to acknowledge eldercide (the homicide of an elderly person) is a male-gender-related homicide as well. Using five years of NIBRS data, Krienert and Walsh (2010) found (1) men (83.5%) are 5 times as likely as women (16.5%) to perpetrate eldercide; (2) women (32%) are 3 times as likely as men (9%) eldercide victims to be killed by a spouse, and slightly more likely to be killed by a child (19% vs. 14%); and (3) elder men are about twice as likely to be killed by strangers (25%) and acquaintances (43%) than are elder women (14% and 22%, respectively).

Intimate Partner Homicides (IPHs) Men are more likely than women to kill current or former intimate partners (Addington & Perumean-Chaney, 2014; Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Belknap, Larson, Abrams, & Garcia, 2012; Biroscak, Smith, & Post, 2006; Bossarte, Simon, & Barker, 2006; J. C. Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007; DeJong, Pizarro, & McGarrell, 2011; Dobash & Dobash, 2015; Fox & Fridel, 2017; Gauthier & Bankston, 1997; Glass, Koziol-McLain, Campbell, & Block, 2004; H. Johnson, Eriksson, Mazerolle, & Wortley, 2017; Langford, Isaac, & Kabat, 1998; Serran & Firestone, 2004; Shai, 2010; P. H. Smith, Moracco, & Butts, 1998; Smucker, Kerber, & Cook, 2018; Vittes & Sorenson, 2008; Yousuf et al., 2017). When women kill, however, their victims are most likely to be their current or former intimate partners (boyfriends, husbands, exhusbands, etc.) (e.g., Block & Christakos, 1995; Browne & Williams, 1989; DeJong et al., 2011; Fox & Zawitz, 2010; Gauthier & Bankston, 1997; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). Even though intimate partner homicides (IPHs) are highly male-gender-related, among all homicides, the IPH gender gap is smaller (Gauthier & Bankston, 1997; Fox & Fridel, 2017). An analysis of intimate partner homicides in the United States from 1976 to 2005 reported that the number of men murdered by intimate partners decreased by 75% over this time period, whereas the number of women killed by intimate partners remained steady for two decades and then declined after 1993, reaching the lowest recorded level in 2004 and stabilizing there since then (Fox & Zawitz, 2010). IPHs declined for all gender and race groups, but mostly for Black men victims (decreased 83%), followed by white men victims (decreased 61%), Black women victims (decreased 52%), and least for white women victims (decreased by 6%) (Fox & Zawitz, 2010).

Filicides Nowhere is the violation of culturally bound gender roles more sensationalized and symbolic than women who kill their own children. Three terms describe parents’ killing of their own children: (1) Neonaticide is the killing of one’s infant in the first 24 hours of life, (2) infanticide is the killing of one’s baby who is less than a year but more than 1 day old, and (3) filicide is the killing of one’s own child who is birth to 18 years old (although some studies use 1 to 18 years old). Large national U.S. studies fairly consistently identify filicide as a gender-neutral offense (Fox & Zawitz, 2004; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Mariano, Chan, & Myers, 2014), although mothers are more likely to kill very young children (especially neonates and infants) and fathers are more likely to kill older children (Alder & Baker, 1997; Debowska, Boduszek, & Dhingra, 2015; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Mariano et al., 2014; Putkonen, WeizmannHenelius, Lindberg, Rovamo, & Häkkänen-Nyholm, 2011; S. F. Rodriguez & Smithey, 1999). However, an analysis of 30 years (1976–2005) of U.S. infanticides reported 62% were by men/fathers (Fox & Zawitz, 2010). Another study found infanticides committed by mothers’ boyfriends (16.4%) plus those committed by the infants’ fathers (24.7%) exceeded the percentage of infanticides committed by the infants’ mothers (32.4%) (Smithey, 1998). Given that mothers generally spend far more time parenting, especially as single parents, we would expect them to be more likely to commit filicide, but no studies account for this. Compared with maternal filicides (mother-killed children), in paternal filicides (fatherkilled children) the children were older (Alder & Baker, 1997; Debowska et al., 2015; Putkonen et al., 2011); the parent was older (than the other parent) (Debowska et al., 2015); the parent was previously violent to the child (Putkonen et al., 2011); the

parent was violent with other children in the home, including killing other children in the home (Putkonen et al., 2011); the parent was abusive or violent to the other parent, including in some cases, having killed the other parent (Adhia, Austin, Fitzmaurice, & Hemenway, 2019; Putkonen et al., 2011); the filicide was more impulsive (Putkonen et al., 2011); the killing was motivated by revenge or retaliation against the other parent and/or the child(ren) (Putkonen et al., 2011; Wilczynski, 1995); and the parent was intoxicated/high at the time (Putkonen et al., 2011). Conversely, compared with paternal filicides, in maternal filicides, the child was unwanted (Wilczynski 1995); the parent was more isolated (Alder & Baker, 1997); the child had a disability (Alder & Baker, 1997); the parent was frustrated with the child (Alder & Baker, 1997); the killing was altruistic (e.g., the child is dying or in pain and, sometimes, wishes to die) (Debowska et al., 2015; Wilczynski, 1995); the killing was consistent with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (the parent does it to get attention/sympathy from others) (Wilczynski, 1995); or the parent was psychotic/mentally ill (Debowska et al., 2015; Wilczynski, 1995). Regarding filicide methods, fathers are more likely to use guns (Mariano et al., 2014; Putkonen et al., 2011), and mothers are more likely to drown, poison, or criminally neglect the child (Putkonen et al., 2011). Fathers are more likely to suicide after the killings (Debowska et al., 2015; Putkonen et al., 2011); mothers are more likely to try to cover their tracks and get rid of the body (Putkonen et al., 2011). One of the important themes in these identifiers is the connection with intimate partner abuse. The United States not only has the highest rate of child homicides among 25 populous, high-income countries, but 20.2% of U.S. child homicide victims are related to intimate partner violence (Adhia, Austin et al., 2019). Compared with other childhomicide offenders, those who commit child homicide that is related to intimate partner violence are disproportionately men, parents of the victim (i.e., fathers), white, use a firearm, and kill at the victim’s home (Adhia, Austin et al., 2019). Research focusing solely on maternal filicides indicates that they are most frequently neonaticides, followed by infanticides, with killing of their children a year or older the least common (Ciani & Fontanesi, 2012). Oberman (2003) identified four types of maternal filicide offenders: (1) neonaticide—killing an infant less than 24 hours old, mostly by very young women/girls who deny their pregnancy to others and sometimes to themselves and may fear single parenthood; (2) fatal child neglect— unintentional killings, where the mother is distracted or inattentive (e.g., leaving a baby in a bath tub, car, or home alone or with a sibling too young to care for the child); (3) abuse-related—a violent episode where there is child abuse, but the mother did not mean to kill the child; (4) assisted or coerced— mothers who kill their children with their male partners (e.g., the children’s fathers or the mother’s boyfriends) and usually involves mothers also victimized by these male partners. Women who commit neonaticide are disproportionately younger (often pregnant teenagers), poor, have no partner, attempt to conceal the pregnancy and the baby, and kill nonviolently, usually through abandonment (e.g., Ciani & Fontanesi, 2012; ebowski et al., 2015; Oberman, 2003; Smithey, 1998). It should be remembered that many of these women and girls face very real consequences if their pregnancies “were to become known,” that “could result in rejection and ostracization by significant others, such as parents, husbands, or boyfriends” (Smithey, 1998, p. 287). In addition, teenage parenting, particularly being a single parent, can throw someone into poverty or make someone’s situation far more dire. Despite an abundance of research on the sexist, classist, and racist treatment of young/teen mothers, evolutionary theory has been speculated to explain their neonaticides and infanticides (Mariano et al., 2014) without acknowledging their often highly disadvantaged situations.

GIRLS AND WOMEN IN GANGS People, including police, rarely think of girls when envisioning gang members (D. Peterson, 2012). Studies vary widely in what they report as girls’ representation in gangs, ranging from 6% to half of gang members (Bjerregaard, 2002; Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Felkenes & Becker, 1995; Gilman, Hill, Hawkins, Howell, & Kosterman, 2014; Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2013). Although

the National Gang Center reports that girls consistently constituted around 7% of U.S. gang members between 1998 and 2010 (their most recent data) and that girls constitute increasingly higher percentages moving from larger cities to rural counties (National Gang Center, 2019), the scholarship on gangs in the most recent years indicates that girls’ proportion of gang members is much higher than 7%; indeed it was reported to be 24% (Gilman et al., 2014), 31% (Watkins & Melde, 2018), and 41% (Estrada, Gilreath, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2016; D. Peterson, 2012) in extensive studies. Wing and Willis’s (1997) research on gangs, race, and gender notes the racism and sexism of “gangs” being perceived as synonymous with African American men’s criminality. Additionally, they are troubled by the invisibility of African American women’s roles in gang life. Wing and Willis (p. 244) identify six “frequently overlapping” roles of African American women’s gang involvement: (1) full-fledged members of their own, female-only gangs; (2) auxiliaries to male gangs; (3) gangsters in coed gangs; (4) girlfriends and wives of male gang members; (5) mothers of male gang members’ children; and (6) mothers, sisters, and daughters of male gang members. Thus, they conclude that African American women “have the capacity to affect gang members on profoundly intimate levels” and thus must play a pivotal role in providing solutions to the gang problem (p. 243). Research on LGBTQI+ gang members is very new and Vanessa R. Panfil and Dana Peterson have been key in drawing attention to this gap (Panfil, 2014; D. Peterson & Panfil, 2014). Panfil’s (2017) book The Gang’s All Queer is not only ground-breaking in criminology and gang studies but also in queer studies, women studies, and gender and sexuality studies. Her sample is entirely gay men/boys in gangs that are partially or fully gay, and the participants are primarily African American (77%), then white (11%), biracial (9%), and Latinx (2%). One of the many fascinating comparisons with girls in gangs is society’s resistance to think someone could be a gay man/boy and be in a gang. Some of the men and boys reported their parents being far more upset that they were gay than that they were in a gang.

A Brief History of Feminist Gang Scholarship Joan W. Moore and Anne Campbell are the first feminist gang scholars. J. W. Moore (1991) warns against sociologists who “treat gangs as if they were totally isolated delinquent phenomena, in fact gang members go to school, and their group is one of many in the school youth-culture setting” (p. 41). J. W. Moore (1991) and A. Campbell (1991) caution against essentializing gangs, regardless of gender, but also in terms of gender. Until Campbell’s work in the 1980s, if gang researchers included women/girls, they were only as afterthoughts in studies on boys/men, and the studies viewed them through sexist, racist, and sexualized lenses (Chesney-Lind & Hagedorn, 1999). Not surprisingly, then, women and girls’ participation in gangs has typically been viewed as an extension of men and boys’ gang membership, with the female gang members viewed as sidekicks and sex objects for the male gang members (see A. Campbell, 1990, 1991; Chesney-Lind & Hagedorn, 1999), where their sexual experiences, pregnancies, and motherhood are used as indicators of their delinquency, while their sexual victimizations (including gang rapes) are presented as consensual experiences (A. Campbell, 1991; Chesney-Lind & Hagedorn 1999). More recent research suggests that “girls in gangs” are more dynamic, independent, and interesting than the criminologists from the 1970s and earlier would have us believe (Belknap & Bowers, 2016; A. Campbell, 1990; Chesney-Lind & Hagedorn, 1999; L. A. Hughes, Botchkovar, & Short, 2019; Laidler & Hunt, 2001; J. Miller, 2001; J. Miller & Brunson, 2000; J. W. Moore, 1991; Wing & Willis, 1997). At the same time, Panfil and Peterson (2015) note that individuals can gain entrée into gangs through “their familiar or other longstanding relationships,” such as by being “‘born in,’ ‘blessed in,’ or ‘walked in,’” or they can be “‘jumped in,’” wherein they must fight other members of the gang for a designated period of time, but only girls/women are “‘sexed in,’” that is, having sex with male gang members to gain entrée (p. 213). However, they note that this is rare because of the cost that comes

with it of being looked down on by other female and male gang members for doing so. Fishman’s (1999) analysis of the Vice Queens in Chicago in the 1960s reported that although the members would accompany the Vice Kings to their fights and subsequently fight the Vice Kings’ enemy’s auxiliary female gang members, the Vice Queens were far more likely to participate in their own fights with other women gangs, independently of what was going on with the Vice Kings. Most of the fights the Vice Queens engaged in had to do with issues of loyalty and integrity, with integrity involving a “threat to or attack on their public reputation” (p. 75). Notably, “fighting a male, and especially winning, carried a particular status among the girls” (p. 75). Consistent with J. Miller’s (2001) classic study of girls in gangs, L. A. Hughes and colleagues’ (2019) more recent analysis of historic Chicago girl gangs from 1959 to 1962 found their friendship networks were not as close as other girl gang research suggests, and they were in the gang more for peer backup on the streets. The girls’ offenses included some more masculine-associated crimes such as strong-arm robberies and purse snatchings. Also consistent with J. Miller’s (2002) more recent research on girls in gangs, L. A. Hughes and colleagues (2019) reported that while sex was “used to gain favor with boys, we found no evidence of it being valued and rewarded with prestige” among their own gang members (p. 1), and J. Miller (2002) reported also that sex devalued their status in boys’ views.

Gangs and Criminal Behavior Being in a gang is not a crime, but gang membership is typically associated with delinquent and criminal activities. Indeed, regardless of gender, “involvement in delinquent behaviors” is the “strongest predictor of gang membership” (Bjerregaard & Cochran, 2012, p. 45). A study using national data from the United States reported that of delinquent girls, 6% are gang members, while 11% of delinquent boys are gang members (H. N. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Research consistently reports delinquency and criminal behavior are more prevalent in young men’s than young women’s gangs (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993; A. Campbell, 1991; Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; J. Miller, 2001, 2002; J. Miller & Brunson, 2000; Morash, 1983; Watkins & Melde, 2018), with the exception of a study reporting equal levels of drug use (Esbensen & Winfree, 1998). One study found 90% of boys and 75% of girls had been arrested (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995), and others that young men were more likely than young women gang members to carry guns (J. Miller, 2001; J. Miller & Brunson, 2000: Watkins & Melde, 2018). However, a recent study found being in a gang (“gang membership”) increased girls’ more than boys’ likelihood of serious offending, violent victimization, and carrying a weapon (although girls’ offending was still significantly lower) (Watkins & Melde, 2018). For both girls and boys, peer influence/pressure is the motivation for committing offenses (Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). As expected, the more time girls spend with delinquent girls, particularly girl gang members, the more likely they are to commit delinquent acts (Giordano, 1999). Notably, although girl gang members’ offending is influenced by boy gang members, research indicates that these girls are more influenced by the other girls in their gangs (A. Campbell, 1991; Giordano, 1999). Significantly, some girl gang scholars identify their violence (when they use it) as a way of doing femininity (Laidler & Hunt, 2001; Messerschmidt, 1999). Messerschmidt (1999) claims that girl gang members’ use of violence can actually be used positively to portray their power, and can be considered feminine in certain cases where, for example, it is to defend their neighborhood or gang. Laidler and Hunt (2001) believe the girl gang members work to maintain not only their femininity but also their autonomy from others, particularly boys and men: “In their eyes, a man has to have respect for her as a woman and as an individual” (p. 674). Hagedorn and Devitt’s (1999) study of primarily Latina gangs in Milwaukee found they were evenly divided between the gang members who “liked to fight” and those who fought to maintain solidarity with their gang members. The few women who reported that they were “not fighters” were frowned upon by their gang peers for violating the gang norms. Notably, the women who “liked to fight” had less of a male-centered outlook on life (e.g., were less likely to agree that all women “need” a man to order

their lives), whereas the women who fought for gang solidarity were more likely to be in a current intimate relationship with a man. Latina gangs were most likely to fight because of turf battles or a rival gang “representing,” whereas fights with other gangs constituted less than half of African American women gang members’ fights. African American women gang members’ fights were more likely over “respect” and “jealousy” issues than were the Latina women’s gang fights. A gender difference in gang members’ fighting is that compared with boys, girls are more likely to fight when their personal, often sexual, reputation has been challenged, whereas boys are more likely than girls to fight when the reputation of the gang has been challenged (which is never sexual) (A. Campbell, 1984; J. Miller, 2002). A. Campbell’s (1999b) study of Puerto Rican girl gang members in New York City from 1979 to 1981 found that the gang girls “took pride in their ability to fight” and “stress[ed] their aggressiveness and work[ed] hard at developing a reputation as a fighter” (p. 115). Campbell concluded, “More than winning a fight, it was important to be ready to enter one” (p. 116). A study of Los Angeles gangs reported that twice as many male (24%) as female (13%) gang members reported they would kill someone if asked to do so by the gang (Felkenes & Becker, 1995, p. 8). Finally, as expected, pregnancy often decreases the amount of fighting for girls in gangs (Fleisher & Krienert, 2004).

Why Girls Join Gangs A frequently asked question regarding girls in gangs is, “Why would a girl want to join a gang?” Research indicates shared motivations, regardless of gender, for joining gangs (Bjerregaard & Cochran, 2012). Four main reasons that are somewhat overlapping have been identified in research. The primary reason is that gangs provide a sense of belonging (A. Campbell, 1999a; Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Fishman, 1999; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Lauderback et al., 1992; Messerschmidt, 1999; J. Miller, 2001; J. W. Moore, 1999). This overlaps with the second reason, that gangs provide respite from the harsh environments in the neighborhoods, families, and/or schools of many members (Fishman, 1999; L. A. Hughes et al., 2019; Messerschmidt, 1999; J. Miller, 2001). Third, gangs offer safety and protection (A. Campbell, 1999; Fishman, 1999; L. A. Hughes et al., 2019; Messerschmidt, 1999; J. Miller, 2001). Finally, gangs can provide status (Fishman, 1999; Lauderback et al., 1992). Related to belonging and status, a study of largely Latinx youth gangs in Los Angeles indicated a link between Latinx pride and gang membership: Over 90% of the youths reported pride in their Latinx culture (Felkenes & Becker, 1995). Regardless of gender, living in a neighborhood where gangs are prevalent, is likely one of, if not the, biggest risk factor for gang involvement (Gilman et al., 2014; J. W. Moore, 1991). For example, Joe and Chesney-Lind’s (1999) study of Hawaiian gang members found that for both girls and boys, the gang provides a “social outlet and tonic” for growing up in communities “racked by poverty, racism, and rapid population growth” and lives fraught with boredom due to limited recreational outlets (p. 229). In addition, for both sexes, gang membership provides a sense of family for those youths whose parents are forced (due to the economy) to work numerous hours, or worse, for those youths whose home lives are abusive (p. 229). Similarly, J. W. Moore’s (1999) study of gang members and their families in East Los Angeles reported that, although gang membership serves as a “family” for both genders, given that women gang members are more likely than their male counterparts to report incest histories, more troubled families, living with a chronically sick relative, living with a relative who died, living with a relative who was a heroin addict, and living with a relative who was arrested, gang membership may represent a different peer group outlet and be more of a refuge from family for young women than for young men gang members. Another Los Angeles Latinx gang study also noted that girls reported lower satisfaction/happiness levels regarding their families (Felkenes & Becker, 1995).

How Boys in Gangs Treat Girls in Gangs Notably, J. W. Moore’s (1991, p. 57) extensive, decades-long gang research reported that despite a strong gendered double standard, there is a significant range in how

men and boy gang members treat girl and women gang members. J. Miller and Brunson’s (2000) interviews with gang members in St. Louis found that most members described their gangs as including both (traditionally defined) genders, although like the other co-offending research findings, this is more common among women: 81% of young women reported their gangs had both members and 29% of young men reported their gangs were single-gender. Some of this discrepancy, however, may be due to some of the young men not considering some of the young women who consider themselves “members” as members. Regardless, the all-male gangs tended to view gangs as a masculine endeavor whereas men in the mixedgender gangs emphasized the masculine while also mentioning the gang’s social endeavors. Moreover, gender segregation in the mixed-gender gangs was most pronounced when it was time to “‘get down to business’: girls did their own thing, and boys did theirs” (p. 434). In J. Miller and Brunson’s study, sexism within the mixedgender gangs included the girls seeing the boys as equal members, but the boys viewing the girls as lesser members. Possibly, this is because although the young women worried about being jumped and beaten, the young men faced more lethal violence than did the young women (p. 442). Girl gang members are aware of the male gang members’ sexualizing and conventional notions of them, and the girl gang members monitor other girls both in and out of their gang in terms of appearances and conduct that can be sexualized (L. A. Hughes et al., 2019; Laidler & Hunt, 2001; J. Miller & Brunson, 2000). A. Campbell’s (1999b) analysis of Puerto Rican female gang members in New York City described their frustration with the public perception of them as “whores,” or “ho’s.” Thus, the gang girls “exerted a good deal of social control over one another’s sexual behavior,” where “serial monogamy was the norm and sexual promiscuity was frowned upon” (p. 113). At the same time, they were quite aware of and frustrated with the double standard where males’ infidelity in intimate relationships was accepted and even expected. One study reported that because gang girls are often angered by their own mothers’ use of drugs and violence and inability to realize their mothering roles, and in order to gain their own sense of respectability, they both adopt and reject some of the conventional gender roles.

Bargaining With Patriarchy Some feminist gang scholars have situated girls in gangs as “bargaining with the patriarchy” (L. A. Hughes et al., 2019; J. Miller, 2001), a concept borrowed from Kandiyoti (1988) that explains marginalized women and girls’ negotiations with a sexist culture and how accepting parts of it is both rewarding and negating. Girls’ gang membership has been situated in “bargaining with the patriarchy” whereby the young women “accept and help perpetuate the marginal position of girls in the gang in exchange for social benefits of gang members, such as protection and respectability in the streets” (L. A. Hughes et al., 2019, p. 4). Notably, L. A. Hughes and colleagues’ (2019) recent analysis of historic 1959 to 1962 Chicago girl gang data did not find girl gang members striving to be “one of the guys” and attributed this to the girls feeling less empowered to try to “pursue equal footing with the boys” given the time (p. 20). Perhaps nowhere is this “bargaining with the patriarchy” more intense than among women in El Salvadoran gangs, with their “precarious” agency: The ways in which the link between women, transgression and violence is usually addressed, by associating passivity or limited agency with femininity in contexts of vulnerability and harm … the complexity of approaching these … tensions and paradoxes that their violent action entails, since their incorporation into a group such as Salvadoran gangs—which seeks homologation in/of identity through the exercise of violence—means that agency can only be produced from their subjection and simultaneous deviation from the (male) frame of production of the gang-memberprototype. (Santacruz Giralt, 2019, p. 1) Girls’ length of membership in gangs is shorter than that of boys (Panfil & Peterson, 2015; Pyrooz et al., 2013), which could be further evidence of their independence

and agency. Not surprisingly, some (but not all) girls leave gangs due to pregnancy or becoming mothers (Fleisher & Krienert, 2004; Moloney, Hunt, Joe-Laidler, & MacKenzie, 2011; J. W. Moore, 1991). Research on boys/men in gangs as fathers is almost nonexistent.

SUMMARY This chapter reviewed the extant research on the contexts of women and girls’ offending for many specific offenses. Although there are many gender similarities in the contexts of offending, there are also many gender differences. It was beyond the scope to cover all offenses, but clear patterns emerged regarding the significance of how race, sexual identity, class, and some other variables such as mental health, intersect with gender in offending. Moreover, this chapter documents the impact of societal sexism, particularly gendered roles, and gender-based abuse, regarding women and girls’ offending. The next chapter addresses how gender impacts the criminal legal system’s responses to women and girl offenders and how these responses are related to race, sexuality, mental health, class, and some other intersecting variables.

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure The x axis on this stacked bar graph shows three categories of offenses: Larceny/theft Burglary Robbery The y axis shows the percentages and the values on this axis range from 0 to 100, in intervals of 10. The percentage of arrests seen for male and female offenders for each offence on the x axis are tabulated below:

Offence

Percentage of arrests for males

Percentage of arrests for females

Larceny/Theft 58

42

Burglary

80.4

19.6

Robbery

84.9

15.1

6 PROCESSING WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM In the juvenile court … Black females are not viewed as survivors of poor circumstances but rather gender nonconformists, criminals, violent aggressors or all of the above. —Lowery (2019b, p. 130)

Crime processing refers to responses by criminal legal system (CLS) officials, from the police to parole board members, regarding the handling of alleged suspects, defendants, offenders, and victims (i.e., decisions to arrest, detain in jail, charge with an offense, convict, sentence, and parole from prison). Since the 1970s, increased attention has been given to exploring whether gender discrimination in crime processing exists, and if so, how (including intersections with race/ethnicity and other variables). Ideally, CLS officials’ decisions about suspects and defendants are based on legal characteristics, characteristics most people agree should impact official decisions, such as severity of the offense, the defendants’ prior criminal history, and accurate evidence. Conversely, in a just CLS, extralegal characteristics—such as the gender, race/ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, and similar characteristics of suspects, defendants, offenders, and victims— should not impact CLS officials’ decision-making. Some characteristics are not agreed upon as in classifications of legal and extralegal. For example, many people believe that the mentally ill, mentally disabled, youth, and parents of young children should be given special consideration and held less culpable, but others do not. K. K. Cheng (2017) adds cultural variables, as “essential elements of judicial decision making and sentencing” that “have been neglected by both policy and research” (p. 506). He further identifies two types of cultural variables that are applied in sentencing decisions.

Aggravating factors are court-applied cultural factors that “enhance” the sentencing outcome to make it more severe/punitive, and mitigating factors are those that reduce the outcome to less severe/punitive. This framework is useful but complex—are race, gender, sexuality, class, extralegal variables or are they the cultural variable of racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, respectively? Similarly, is marital status considered an extralegal factor by some but a cultural (aggravating/mitigating) factor by others? In their assessment of rape trial decision-making, A. Edwards and Heenan (1994) argue that “cultural beliefs and power relationships of patriarchal society which shape the social and sexual expectations and practices … and moral and social interpretations and evaluations of situations” are perhaps larger threats than the laws and the CLS (p. 216). This chapter is divided into numerous sections to try to address defendant/offender gender and CLS decisionmaking. This issue is extremely complicated. We will see strong patterns that give us faith that the research is documenting what occurs, but it is also important to continuously keep in mind that no one study includes all the relevant variables and contexts of individual defendants/offenders. The studies reviewed in this chapter will be reported in terms of whether the findings indicate equal treatment, leniency for boys and men (evil woman), or leniency for girls and women (chivalry). Factors that need to be considered to determine whether gender bias occurs in crime processing include (1) the race, class, age, sexuality, immigrant status, and so on of the alleged offender; (2) the importance of reforms in the CLS (such as the net-widening policies and laws discussed in Chapter 4); (3) the stage in the CLS; (4) the type and seriousness of offense; (5) how gender role stereotypes affect gender bias in crime processing; (6) the contexts of the offenses (missing from most data); (7) the time period of the data collection; and (8) the jurisdiction of data collection. Quite simply, no single study can account for all the variables that have been found to influence CLS outcomes, but the more variables there are and the larger the studies are, the more confidence we have about the relationship among variables in predicting CLS outcomes. While it is useful to report the CLS decision-making patterns, it is also important to remember the limitations. Finally, it is staggering how rarely class is measured in affecting CLS outcomes, and it is important to keep in mind the strong correlations between race and class, single parenthood and class, and so on. One of the few studies including class used Add Health (longitudinal and national)

data and found although there was no gender difference in the impact of class on likelihood of adult incarceration, higher family socioeconomic status (SES) was a protective factor against incarceration (Burgess-Proctor, Huebner, & Durso, 2016).

HYPOTHESES OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE CLS Three primary hypotheses have been identified to test whether there is gender discrimination in CLS processing, and if so, whether it is against women and girls or men and boys; these hypotheses are (1) the equal treatment hypothesis, (2) the chivalry (or paternalism) hypothesis, and (3) the “evil woman” hypothesis. The equal treatment (or the null) hypothesis states there is no gender discrimination in crime processing. For example, a man and woman committing the same crime would be charged the same by the police. The chivalry or paternalism thesis hypothesizes that there is gender discrimination in the CLS against men and boys; that they are treated more harshly and women and girls are treated more leniently. For example, underage girls who drink alcohol are treated less severely than underage drinking boys. The third category, the evil woman hypothesis, purports gender discrimination whereby women and girls are treated more harshly than men and boys by the CLS. The reasoning behind this belief is that offending women and girls have violated gender roles as well as laws; this belief is consistent with the concept of hostile sexism. Nagel and Hagan (1983) suggest that the evil woman hypothesis is not the opposite of the chivalry hypothesis but rather its corollary: Women receive chivalrous treatment if they commit less serious crimes, exhibit the “appropriate” passive demeanor, and have little evidence against them (pp. 135–136). An example of evil woman decision-making is when mothers receive worse sentences for the identical child abuse as fathers. Farnworth and Teske (1995) identified three corollaries to the chivalry hypothesis. First, and consistent with Nagel and Hagan’s (1983)1 point in the previous section, the typicality hypothesis “proposes that women are treated with chivalry in criminal processing, but only when their charges are consistent with stereotypes of female offenders” (Farnworth & Teske, 1995, p. 23). Second, the selectivity hypothesis states that CLS chivalrous

treatment is racist and disproportionately given to white women and girls. Notably, others have added sexual identity, class, immigrant status, and other variables to test the selectivity hypothesis, or what is also called selective chivalry (L. M. Dodge, 2002). Finally, the differential discretion hypothesis suggests that the stage in the CLS system matters, specifically that chivalrous decision-making is more likely in informal decision-making, such as charge reduction decisions (Farnworth & Teske, 1995).

CHIVALRY IS COMPLICATED The corollary hypotheses to the chivalry hypothesis indicate three ways that chivalrous treatment can be complicated. K. K. Cheng’s (2017) cultural mitigating and aggravating factors also underscore the complexity of chivalrous treatment. Some feminist scholars and legal advocates question whether equal treatment is necessarily the right objective because it ignores the gendered/sexist access to power in society, including the often distinct gendered/sexist roles and responsibilities (Daly, 1989c; Allison Morris, 1987). Eaton’s (1986) analysis of court cases in a London suburb found that while men and women were treated similarly when they were in similar circumstances, women and men were rarely in similar circumstances, particularly regarding child-care demands and employment. Jeffries and Bond (2013) identify the three general reasons offered for chivalry in crime processing, particularly in more recent research: blameworthiness, risk, and practical constraints and consequences. Blameworthiness is that, relative to offending males, offending females have less agency as a result of their higher rates of trauma and victimization and likelihood of mental illness (vis-à-vis males) and thus should not be held as responsible as men and boys. Consistent with this, a recent North Carolina study on incarcerated women recommended implementing sentencing “mitigation teams” to account for women offenders’ victimization histories, given that even after controlling for legal variables, child abuse and sexual abuse survivors’ sentences were 67% and 129% longer, respectively, than women classified with “low victimization” (S. C. Kennedy, Mennicke, Feely, & Tripodi, 2018).1 Risk as a reason for chivalry is the assumption that women are more dependent than men on their spouses, and children are more dependent on their

mothers than their fathers; therefore, women are less likely to recidivate than men. Finally, practical constraints and consequences pertain to the fact that chivalrous CLS decisions are made because generally higher social costs for children result when mothers, as compared to fathers, are incarcerated. 1

The sentencing judges were likely unfamiliar with the victimization histories that were collected by researchers after the women were incarcerated. Related to bargaining with the patriarchy, mentioned in the previous chapter, are two binary concepts of gender discrimination: Benevolent sexism protects and rewards women and girls for traditionally feminine and gender-“appropriate” appearance and behaviors, while hostile sexism punishes women and girls deemed as assuming masculine roles, agency, and power (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Sarlet & Dardenne, 2012). Both types of sexism result in gender inequality, although many view benevolent sexism as benign (harmless) (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Feminists argue that benevolent sexism is not benign; rather, it is often at the cost of women, is condescending to women and girls (Sarlet & Dardenne, 2012, p. 435), and is a bartering system whereby women and girls may be rewarded with a seeming lesser sentence but one that stigmatizes them and/or ignores context, such as deeming survival choices as mentally ill or poor decision-making (Gaskins, 2004). An example of this is applying the “battered woman’s syndrome” as a defense in intimate partner homicide cases where a woman has truly killed her partner in self-defense. Rather than applying the self-defense law, using this “syndrome” pathologizes such women’s rational and legal responses; hence, the self-defense law should be suitable (Gillespie, 1989).

THE LEGACY OF RACISM AND CONFOUNDING MEASURES OF RACE/ETHNICITY The legacy of racist and nationalistic governments and cultures in colonization include the negative impact of colonization on Indigenous peoples’ gender equality (Byrd, 2011; L. Ross, 1998, 2004). Criminologist Saleh-Hanna (2008) identifies penal coloniality

— the role of the CLS (including prison system) to promote “divisions and stigmas that keep poor populations in fear of each other, thus unable to form a solidarity that can effectively challenge oppressive systems” (p. 31). Whether penal coloniality is purposive, as SalehHanna states, or “simply” the nonpurposive ongoing harm of colonization of in the United States and across the world, it impacts current-day justice. Crenshaw (2012) reports that among Black, white, and Latinx women, Black women are 6.5 times as likely and Latinas are 2.5 times as likely as white women to be incarcerated in their lifetimes, and Black women are 2.6 times as likely as Latinas to be incarcerated in their lifetimes. The odds across Black, Latinx, and white men are similar (Blacks are 5.7 times as likely as whites, 2.0 times as likely as Latinos, and Latinos are 2.8 times as likely as whites to be incarcerated). Indeed, many criminologists attest to the greater likelihood of Black and Brown people being snared into the CLS due to heightened CLS surveillance of them as individuals and their neighborhoods and schools (e.g., J. Flores, 2016; K. M. Green, Doherty, Sifat, & Ensminger, 2019; M. W. Morris, 2015; Richie, 2012). A significant problem in determining the impact of gender and race is the “missing Black men” phenomenon identified in two 2015 New York Times articles (Wolfers, Leonhardt, & Quealy, 2015a, 2015b). In brief, an analysis of individuals aged 25 to 54 years in the U.S. Census data found 1.5 million Black men are “missing” from society primarily due to incarceration and early deaths, but also the disproportionate number of African American men in the U.S. military, including those killed while on duty. Across the United States, for every 100 Black women there are only 83 Black men, with the largest rate in Ferguson, Missouri, with 40 missing Black men for every 100 Black women. This is in contrast to 1 “missing” white man for every 100 white women (Wolfers et al., 2015a). Race/ethnicity is mismeasured in numerous ways. First, although this is slowly improving, official data often measure Latinx as “ethnicity” and separate from race, identifying many Latinx people as white (as well as other races, but primarily as white). Thus, many studies are likely overreporting white defendants’ and victims’ representation, which in turn, can make it appear there is no, or at least less, racism, when comparing “whites” to African Americans. Second, although research consistently shows the intensive overrepresentation of Native American/Indigenous children and adults as victims and defendants, most criminology research does

not include them. Third, Asian Americans are rarely included in studies on offending and victimization, and when they are, they are far too often categorized as “Asians” (whether they are first- or thirtieth-generation U.S. citizens). Fourth, CLS data often “measure” victims’ and defendants’ race/ethnicity by what CLS workers (e.g., police, jail and prison intake staff, etc.) think their race/ethnicity is and record it as such without asking them. This underrepresents many people of Color, but mostly people who are Native American/Indigenous, biracial and multiracial, and Latinx. Fifth, many scholars document the higher surveillance and presence of the police in the neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of people of Color, thereby increasing their likelihood of entering the CLS (see Chauhan, Reppucci, Burnette, & Reiner, 2010; K. M. Green et al., 2019; Nanda, 2012; Ocen, 2012; Richie, 2012; D. E. Roberts, 2012). Sixth, studies routinely confirm that racial profiling by police and in our schools (the school-to-prison pipeline) is a significant problem, disproportionately tracking people of Color into the CLS (e.g., Annamma et al., 2019; Baumgartner, Epp, Shoub, & Love, 2017; Evans-Winters et al., 2018; J. Flores, 2016; Gion et al., 2018; Lopez, 2017; M. W. Morris, 2015; Shange, 2019). In sum, although the arrest, sentencing, and other studies reported in this chapter are useful, it is important to remember that they likely underreport, thus minimize, the role and presence of racism and, too often, fail to assess how gender intersects with other characteristics such as race/ethnicity, mental health, sexuality, and class. The research reviewed in this chapter indicate considerable support for the chivalry hypothesis, particularly in the court decision-making (e.g., sentencing), but more recent research documents that this is largely due to a failure to account for individuals’ gender–race intersections. “Interactively, gender and race provide a more complete picture of sentencing” than they do alone (Gaub & Holtfreter, 2015, p. 302), but far too often, quantitative studies include sex/gender and race/ethnicity as two separate variables. Spohn, Welch, and Gruhl’s (1985) classic incarceration sentencing study of almost 50,000 cases in a large Northeastern city over a 10year period (1968–1979) found that what appeared to be chivalrous treatment was due to the extraordinarily harsh sanctioning of African American men relative to everyone else (African American women and white men had similar rates). Almost every study since Spohn et al. (1985) that included the intersections of gender and race also documented the exceptionally severe sanctions against African American men, and particularly young African American men and

boys (e.g., M. Davis, Banks, Fisher, Gershenson, & Grudzinskas, 2007; Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018; Evangelist, Ryan, Victor, Moore, & Perron, 2017; Hester & Sevigny, 2016; Horowitz & Uggen, 2019; Leiber, Beaudry-Cyr, Peck, & Mack, 2018; H. Nguyen & Reuter, 2012).

CRIMINAL LAWS AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION Australian feminist legal scholar and activist Scutt (1981) contends that the drafters of criminal law attempted to perpetuate women’s dependency, and U.S. feminist criminology scholar Leonard (1982) describes criminal laws as a measure of the gender inequality in society. This section discusses how criminal laws and/or their applications are often gendered. Gender-neutral laws are written so that no differentiation is made regarding the applicability to women/girls versus men/boys. This does not ensure they will not be applied unfairly, but the law does not designate doing this. Genderspecific laws, on the other hand, specify that they only apply to only one gender or should be applied differently based on gender. Historically, most laws have been gender-neutral, and genderspecific laws have increasingly become gender-neutral since the 1970s. For example, according to most U.S. laws until the 1970s and 1980s, only men could rape and only women could be prostitutes. In addition, infanticide law, even as recently as the 1970s in England and Australia and 1980s in Canada, applied only to women (Scutt, 1981; Shaver, 1993; Smart, 1976).

Three Means of Gender Discrimination in Criminal Laws Three general forms of gender discrimination exist in criminal laws: (1) implementing and applying gender-specific laws, (2) applying gender-neutral laws differently to women/girls than men/boys, and (3) applying gender-neutral laws in a manner that values one gender’s victimizations more seriously than another’s. An example of the first form is the U.S. history of raising victim age in statutory rape laws in the latter 1800s and early 1900s. This enactment is also a critical example of the intersections of sexism and racism and of

benevolent sexism through a gender-specific law (Odem, 1995). In 1885, middle- and upper-class white women organized to raise the age at which a girl could legally consent to sex, which was as young as age 7 in some states (and usually age 10). These reformers were far more concerned with protecting white girls than girls of Color, particularly African American girls, from lecherous men. African American women reformers, concerned about African American girls’ vulnerability to lecherous men, wanted to raise the statutory rape victim age but worried that such an enacted law would be disproportionately applied to Black men. The movement was a success in that by 1920 all states had raised girls’ consent-to-sex age to 16 or 18. The law did not specify at what age boys could consent to sex and was gender-specific for the offender, too: Only men/boys could be statutory rapists. Implementation of the raised statutory rape laws resulted in two alarming criminalizing outcomes: (1) The laws were disproportionately applied to African American men and boys (including in cases where the girls said the sex was consensual), and (2) many girls designated as victims (whether they stated they were raped or that the sex was consensual) were processed as offenders in the juvenile courts and punished for being sexually active (Odem, 1995). The legacy continues as African American boys having consensual sex with white girls who barely violate the statutory rape law age gaps in their states are still disproportionately charged and convicted of statutory rape (Goodwin, 2013). Combining this with the state laws that require youths register as sexual predators when they have been convicted of statutory rape indicate yet another manner of disproportionately criminalizing African American boys. Turning to the second form of gender discrimination in criminal laws, although many gender-specific laws were revised to make them gender-neutral since the 1970s, this has not ensured their genderneutral applications. Nowhere is this more evident than sex work (Bernat, 1984, 1985; S. S. M. Edwards, 1984; Farley & Kelly, 2000; Halter, 2010; Leonard, 1982; Schur, 1984; Smart, 1976; Updegrove et al., 2019). Women/girls are the majority of those who trade sex for money (or other goods), and men are almost exclusively the purchasers. White, employed, middle-class, middle-aged men living in the suburbs disproportionately constitute the sex work clients, but they are rarely criminalized (including for buying sex from underage youths); those penalized for this crime are usually poor women of

Color sex workers (Bernat, 1984; Chauhan, Reppucci, & Turkheimer, 2009; Leonard, 1982). Commercial sex businesses are typically zoned in urban neighborhoods of people of Color, creating a hostile environment where women and girls are harassed and recruited by pimps and johns driving through (Farley & Kelly, 2000). Additionally, sex workers often face significant harassment by police, and when they are victims of crimes, including rape and murder, their victimizations are often ignored by the police or courts (see Frohmann, 1991; Halter, 2010; Allison Morris, 1987). The third way criminal laws may result in gender discrimination is when laws’ applications are biased in terms of the victim’s gender. Rapaport (1991) found that the death penalty was primarily for men who killed other men for financial gain. Additionally, men who killed other men’s wives or children were more likely to receive a death sentence than men who killed their own wives and children. More recent studies in Ohio and Texas indicate a “white female effect”; death penalty verdicts were most likely when the victims were white women or girls (Holcomb, Williams, & Demuth, 2004; Marier, Cochran, Smith, Fogel, & Bjerregaard, 2018; Phillips, Haas, & Coverdill, 2012). The “white female effect” is at least in part due to the media bias: Prosecutors are more likely to press for capital punishment when there is a media frenzy, and the media prioritize cases where white women or girls are sexually assaulted (Phillips et al., 2012). This media portrayal is so common that since 2005, when the late PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill coined it the “Missing White Woman Syndrome,” it has come to be known as the phenomenon by which missing women and girls of Color are rarely considered newsworthy (see Liebler, 2010; Russell-Brown, 2009, p. 23). This is ironic but consistent with L. M. Dodge’s (2002) application of victim devaluation theory to her finding that in the first half of the 20th century in Illinois, compared with Black women, white women received longer sentences for murder: white women were far more likely than Black women to murder white people and “legal authorities value the lives of white victims more highly than those of black victims and thus punish their killers more” (p. 105). Importantly, a more recent study found that “deathworthiness” (likelihood of receiving the death penalty) was most attributed to victims’ race than gender, and particularly to the distinctively low valuing of African American male victims. Controlling for legal variables, compared to when the victim was a Black boy/man, the odds of receiving the death penalty was 3.8 greater when the victim was a white women/girl, very closely flowed by 3.6 times greater for white

men/boy victims, then more distantly but still 2.4 times greater for Black women/girl victims (Girgenti, 2015). Finally, Salcido and Menjívar’s (2012) study of the application of the gender-neutral immigration law found legalization, permanent legal residence, and citizenship decisions regarding Mexican and Central American immigrants to the United States were highly gendered. They attributed this to gendered cultural and employment structures that make women invisible (Salcido & Menjivar, 2012), findings consistent with K. K. Cheng’s (2017) cultural aggravating circumstances that are, in this case, gendered, raced, and classed. Although legalization issues are difficult for the immigrant men, they are more difficult for immigrant women because they are less likely to have paying jobs and they are less likely than men to have paid work as a result of child-care and immigration policies that “channel them away from being recognized as workers in their own right” (Salcido & Menjivar, 2012, p. 363).

The Muncy Act and Legacy in Indeterminate Criminal Sentencing Laws The history of indeterminate sentencing is an example of benevolent sexism. The 1813 Muncy Act of Pennsylvania is likely the most famous example of gender discrimination in sentencing. The act required judges to sentence women convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year to an indeterminate sentence in the Muncy State Industrial Home for Women (the women’s prison). The intention was that women should stay in prison until they were rehabilitated, and because judges could not know how long that would take, their sentences should be unfixed (indeterminate). Men, on the other hand, had fixed or determinate sentences to punish them, with preset minimums and maximums. In practice, given that judges had far less discretion in shortening women’s (compared with men’s) sentences, women often served far more time than men for the same and even less serious crimes, even in some cases where they were codefendants. As recently as the 1970s, Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio had laws like the Muncy Act, permitting longer sentences for women/girls than men/boys for the same offense (Temin, 1980). The first attack on the sexism of the Muncy Act was in 1966 when the defendant won, and other states started striking

down their equivalents of the Muncy Act. In State v. Chambers 1973, the New Jersey State Supreme Court struck down indeterminate sentencing on the grounds that such decision-making violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for women. However, this practice ended only when a state code was implemented in 1979 (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992, p. 120; Feinman, 1992). This history of indeterminate women’s sentencing is useful to juxtapose with the sentencing guidelines that started with President Nixon’s war on drugs, which will be addressed later in this chapter. These guidelines resulted in determinate sentencing that made sentencing harsher regardless of gender; however, with the exception of drug offenses, once the guidelines were implemented, women defendants disproportionately received some of the more beneficial exceptions. It is likely such benefits do not make up for the other sexism, and cumulative sexism, racism, classism, and heterosexism, that many female defendants encounter.

PROCESSING YOUTHFUL DEFENDANTS/OFFENDERS Reforms in the Processing of Youthful Defendants as Status Offenders The establishment of the juvenile court in 1899, the culmination of the “child-savers’” efforts to control youths’ lives, is another example of benevolent sexism. Girls were the “losers in the reform movement,” which resulted in their higher referral rates to juvenile courts and increased likelihood of being incarcerated for “immorality” and “waywardness” (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992, p. 120). Recall that status offenses are behaviors that are only offenses if committed by youths; these include drinking alcohol, skipping school, and running away from home. A national U.S. study published in 1980 found half of girls but only a fifth of boys were referred to family court for status offenses (Datesman & Scarpitti, 1980). U.S. research from the 1960s to 1980s found the juvenile courts often punished the girls’ status offenses more harshly than the boys’ status offenses, and sometimes more harshly than girls’ criminal offenses (Chesney-Lind,

1973, 1981, 1987; Conway & Bogdan, 1977; Datesman & Scarpitti, 1977; Schlossman & Wallach, 1982; R. M. Terry, 1967). The disproportionate treatment of girls for status offenses by the juvenile courts is strongly linked to a double standard for girls and boys regarding running away from home and sexuality whereby “promiscuous girl = delinquent girl.” Much of this “policing” of girls’ sexuality is to keep them from becoming pregnant, but it is also to “protect” their sexual reputations in a way that boys are not protected (or sanctioned). Ironically, a girl’s “promiscuity” was a common rapist legal defense, until the last U.S. jurisdictions repealed it in 1998 (K. Sutherland, 2003, p. 318). Similarly, policing LGBTQI+ youths in statutory rape cases “where the age gap between the parties is narrow, charges for violations of age consent laws are much more likely to be filed when the partners are of the same sex” (K. Sutherland, 2003, p. 327). The outcome of such status offense policing often is unfettered parenting, school, policing, and court decisions criminalizing girls for noncriminal behaviors, and even punishing them for being victims of sexual abuse. Many girls run away from home to escape the abuse, often sexual, at home. Just as Odem’s (1995) research on raising the age of victims in statutory rape laws (referred to earlier in this chapter) resulted in girls being criminalized for both their consensual sex and rape experiences (and African American men/boys being disproportionately targeted by the CLS as the offenders), research on juvenile court records in Memphis, Tennessee, from 1900 to 1917 (Shelden, 1981) and Honolulu, Hawai‘i, between 1929 and 1964 (Chesney-Lind, 1973), also documents girls’ criminalization for both consensual sex and surviving rape. Gynecological exams were commonly required of status and larceny offending girls to determine whether they were virgins (to assess their criminality). Chesney-Lind and Shelden (1992) found that “well into the 1970s in various parts of the United States,” girls in detention “underwent an extra and significant violation of their civil rights” that included pelvic examinations and vaginal searches (pp. 149–150). This is further compacted in the Honolulu, Hawai‘i, findings given that the girls were more likely than the boys to be sent to pretrial detention, and spent three times as long there (Chesney-Lind, 1973). It is also useful to identify successful reforms. From 1901 to 1927 in Denver, progressive reformers, with Judge Ben B. Lindsey at the helm, developed a juvenile court system dedicated to “normalizing”

girls’ sexuality, attempting to educate the citizenry that that regardless of gender, race, class, and immigrant status, most young people have sexual feelings and behaviors (Colomy & Kretzmann, 1997). Lindsey and his court staff were so trusted by girls that the girls came to them to ask questions and broach concerns they were unwilling to ask their own parents. Lindsey gave voice to girls, frequently juxtaposing their intelligence, honesty, and integrity to their parents’ obtuseness and hypocrisy. By doing so, Lindsey intended to rest the court’s authority and the validity of its judgments, in part, on an appreciation and first-hand knowledge of the actual life conditions, burgeoning “modern” sex code, and changing gender roles that regulated the life of young women…. Far from subjecting girls to the status degradation ceremonies practiced in other courts, the Denver court was organized so as to protect their dignity, self-respect, and privacy. (Colomy & Kretzmann, 1997, p. 58) The 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was successful in decreasing status offender incarceration (which obviously impacted girls more than boys) by denying states federal funding for delinquency programs if they institutionalized status offenders (Alder, 1998; Chesney-Lind, 1986, 1988; Krisberg & Schwartz, 1983; Sarri, 1983). Notably, South Australia’s 1979 policy to abolish status offenses not only made such detainment moot but also resulted in decreased concern with girls’ sexuality and resulted in more gender equal treatment of young people (Naffine, 1989). Despite the overall positive impact of the 1974 JJDPA, particularly for girls, 1980s and 1990s studies documented the hidden “transinstitutionalizing” of girls into private detention centers (I. M. Schwartz, Jackson-Beeck, & Anderson, 1984) and mental health facilities (Federle & Chesney-Lind, 1992), often by parents who disapproved of their daughters’ sexual behaviors. And even scholarship in this millennium points to girls’ increased likelihood of being committed as a result of status offenses. Using a wide range of U.S. data from 1985 to 2005, Tracy, Kempf-Leonard, and Abramoske-James (2009) found, compared with boys, girls were significantly more likely to be detained for status offenses. A Mobile,

g y y Alabama, study of youths found girls were more likely than boys to be in residential treatment centers for status offense arrests, while boys were more likely than girls to be in them for criminal (misdemeanor and felony) arrests (N. T. Flynn, Hanks, & Gurley, 2008). Spivak, Wagner, Whitmer, and Charish’s (2014) large study of Oklahoma status offenses found that relative to boys, girls were overrepresented and were more likely to have their petitions filed for review (both evil woman responses); however, they were equally likely of being adjudicated as guilty and sentenced to incarceration instead of probation. An urban Arizona study found what appeared to be gender equal treatment, until the researchers included gender– race intersections in their analysis, after which they found Native American boys, then African American girls, then Latina girls, then African American boys were most likely to be adjudicated for status offenses, with white girls and boys processed similarly and least punitively (Freiburger & Burke, 2011). In the United States from 1995 to 2015, girls’ portion of status offenses has remained consistently around 40%, yet even in 2015 girls were far more represented among status offenses (43%, compared with boys 57%) than among delinquent caseloads (28% were girls and 72% were boys) (Ehrmann, Hyland, & Puzzanchera, 2019). Girls of Color were less overrepresented among status than delinquency cases: White girls constituted 54% of status offense cases, African American girls 22%, Latinx girls 9%, and Native American and Asian American girls combined2 5%. White girls (14%) were almost 5 times more likely than Black girls (3%) to have liquor law violations, Black girls (19%) were twice as likely as white girls (8%) to be runaways, and Latinx girls were in the middle: 9% of runaways and 10% of liquor law violators among these status offenders (Ehrmann et al., 2019). One study found many police officers were unsure what to do with youth prostitutes/sex workers (all but 1 of 126 were girls); given unavailable placements to keep them safe, detaining them in the CLS was their safest option (Halter, 2010). 2

No reason is given for combining Native American and Asian American girls.

Non-Status Offense Delinquency

The stages of the CLS are typically assumed, understandably, to start with the police. It can be argued that youths face two oftenignored pseudo-stages of the CLS prior to the police: their parents (guardians) and schools. As noted, research consistently finds that girls are at much greater risk than boys of having their parents (or legal guardians) turn them into the police or juvenile courts, primarily for status offenses but also for larceny and assaults (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992; Colomy & Kretzmann, 1997; Hiller & Hancock, 1981; Sarri, 1983; I. M. Schwartz et al., 1984; Teilmann & Landry, 1981). The school-to-prison pipeline moniker, credited to J. M. Wald and Losen (2003), is a well-documented pattern whereby youth are “unjustly targeted for removal” from schools due to race, class, and academic problems, placing them at risk of ending up in the CLS (Fenning & Rose, 2007, p. 538). As noted previously, girls of Color, particularly African American girls, have been found to be at a high risk for such criminalizing by schools (e.g., Annamma et al., 2019; L. M. Brown, Chesney-Lind, & Stein, 2007; Gion et al., 2018; M. W. Morris, 2015; T. Stevens et al., 2011). Importantly, “dropping out” of school has been renamed “pushed out” by many scholars who blame school policies and individual school teachers’/administrators’ actions that make it difficult or impossible (i.e., expel students from school) for students to attend (e.g., M. W. Morris, 2015). Notably, a national longitudinal study relying on Add Health data found youths who “dropped out” had higher delinquency scores and were more likely to be incarcerated as adults, and that this was even more likely for girls/women than boys/men (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016). Most research on non-status offenses finds the predominant response is chivalry. The remainder of this section is partitioned into assessing overall gender processing when accounting for intersections with race (and some other variables, such as age), the roles of trauma and mental health, and youths waived to adult court.

Delinquency Studies That Account for Gender but Not Gender–Race Intersections This section summarizes delinquency studies that either did not include race as a variable or if they did, did not include gender–race intersections. Tracy and colleagues’ (2009) analysis of national juvenile court processing data across offense types from 1985 to

2005 (an analysis that did not include race as a variable) is one of the few studies that did not find chivalry in the processing of youths. They found that while court referrals steadily increased from the mid1980s to the mid-1990s for both genders, girls’ referrals stabilized while boys’ markedly decreased and then stabilized, supporting the evil woman hypothesis. Furthermore, both girls’ processing and adjudication rates surpassed boys’ in the juvenile system, and there were no gender differences in the sentence length, indicating more concern for girls’ than boys’ behaviors by the juvenile court staff (Tracy et al., 2009). Conversely, Mowen and Brent’s (2016) national study and Ericson and Eckberg’s (2016) Midwestern study both found both chivalrous and racist processing, separately analyzing gender and race. A Midwestern study that accounted for gender–race intersections among 12,070 urban African American and white youth found slight chivalrous treatment in the likelihood of cases being adjudicated and large racial bias against African Americans, especially boys (Evangelist et al., 2017). Black boys (47%) were the most likely to be adjudicated, followed closely by Black girls (43%), then white boys (37%), and white girls (33%). A Southwestern city study that examined gender-race-age intersections found that compared with gender, race and age had a greater impact on different points of the CLS decision-making, with African American and Latinx and older youth receiving harsher official responses than white and younger youths (Morrow, Dario, & Rodriguez, 2015). In contrast to these results, a large Midwestern study of juvenile court outcomes (dismissal, probation, out-of-home placement) was consistent with the evil woman hypothesis: Girls, particularly white girls, were more likely to receive the harshest outcome (out-of-home placement) (Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2008). Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox’s (2009) large study of juvenile courts in a Midwestern state, examined six stages of decision-making stages (i.e., detention, intake, petition, initial appearance, adjudication, and judicial disposition) from 1980 to 2000. Their detailed analyses found gender and race impacted decisions individually and jointly, and the outcomes varied according to the CLS stage (Leiber et al., 2009). Overall, girls tended to receive leniency at all stages, but Black boys were far more likely than white boys, or girls of either race (the study only included Black and white), to be detained (initial secure confinement). Girls, especially Black girls, were less likely than boys to be petitioned (charged by the prosecutor). Although being initially

detained increased the likelihood of the youths being processed through the system at the harsher levels up until the final disposition, and Black boys were by far the most likely to be initially detained, in the final disposition, Black boys were overall more likely to get probation than out-of-home placement in the judicial dispositions. The authors speculate that “this last effect, however, was conditioned by detention. African American males who were detained did not receive the more lenient outcome of probation or remain in the community but rather were given the more severe dispositional outcome of out-of-home placement” (Leiber et al., 2009, p. 351).

Delinquency Studies on Girl-Only Samples That Account for Race A South Carolina study of girls who had committed serious and violent crimes examined who benefited most from plea-bargaining concessions. The results showed Black girls who were less likely than white girls to receive plea concessions, particularly for assaults. Both living in a single-parent home and having an abuse victimization history mitigated white, but not Black, girls receiving concessions (Lowery, 2019b). A study of girls’ sentencing in Florida found similar sentencing of white and Latina girls, but Black girls were significantly more likely to receive more punitive sentences for less serious and medium crimes and prior histories (L. D. Moore & Padavic, 2010). As the seriousness of the girls’ records and current offense reached the highest levels, however, white girls’ punishments converged with or even surpassed those of Black girls. Stated another way, white girls received chivalry up to a certain point, but at the most serious levels they were treated equally or more harshly (as “evil women”), purportedly for more profoundly violating their gender and race roles (sexism + racism). Lowery’s (2019a) analysis of South Carolina juvenile court data on serious and violent offending girls found that 30% were sentenced to incarceration and 70% to community sanctions (27% to an alternative sanction and 43% received probation). Compared with white girls, Black girls who committed property offenses, who came from a home with abuse or neglect, and who were first time offenders were more likely to be incarcerated.

Developmental and Mental Health (Including Trauma Histories) Mallet, Quinn, and Stoddard-Dare’s (2012) study of 433 Midwestern delinquent youths’ recidivism found some mental health, demographic, and legal variables had gendered effects. For both genders, legal variables and the previous number of suicide attempts increased the likelihood of recidivism. Only for girls, having an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis and a misdemeanor decreased the likelihood of recidivism, and only for boys, being older, having a conduct disorder diagnosis, and being white increased the likelihood of recidivism. One study of youths on the autism spectrum found girls less likely than boys to be stopped by the police (Rava, Shattuck, Rast, & Roux, 2017). As expected, detention is often further harmful to youths’ existing poor mental health (see Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006). Mallet and colleagues (2012) wonder at the logic and humanity of placing such mentally distressed youths in detention given the chilling finding that girls who had made suicide attempts were 7 times, and boys with suicide attempts were 5 times, as likely to recidivate as their nonsuicidal gender counterparts. Earlier chapters documented how trauma, including child abuse, places youths (and adults) at elevated risks of subsequent offending. A large study of youthful offenders in the Los Angeles County Probation Department found that 7% were referred there from Child Welfare Services (CWS) and that the young people in CWS were there primarily because they were victims of maltreatment (Ryan, Herz, Hernandez, & Marshall, 2007). Moreover, the youths tracked into the juvenile probation system through CWS were disproportionately African Americans and girls, indicating that the troubling practice of processing maltreated (victimized) youth identified through CWS as offenders is further exacerbated by gender and race discrimination of these youths once they are in the juvenile “justice” system (Ryan et al., 2007).

Transferring Youths to Adult Court A primary change marking the move from rehabilitating to further criminalizing youths since the 1980s is youth waiver (also called

transfer) policies: transferring youthful defendants to adult court and often, if convicted, to adult prisons. Such judicial and prosecutorial waivers are the deepest end of the system for youths (Gaarder & Belknap, 2002; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2010). As expected, these young people receive far harsher punishments, including a higher likelihood of incarceration, than their nonwaived juvenile court counterparts (Kupchik & Harvey, 2007; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2010). Although juvenile waivers are rare (4 in every 1,000 cases) and supposed to be reserved for very serious cases, they are not: Less than half (47%) were for person/violent offenses, a third (31%) were for property offenses, 13% were for drug offenses, and 8% were for public order offenses (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2014). Moreover, youths transferred to adult court and convicted to prison receive longer sentences than similarly situated adults (K. L. Jordan & McNeal, 2016; Lehmann, Chiricos, & Bales, 2018). Youth waivers to adult/criminal court are highly gendered: Boys are about 4 times more likely to be transferred to adult court than are girls, although girls’ share has grown slightly (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2014). However, a study of CLS workers (including judges) found they were likely to recommend harsher sentences for girls (than boys) waived to adult court for nonviolent crimes (with no gender differences in recommendations for transferred violent youths) (Lehmann, Pickett, Ryon, & Kosloski, 2019). Regardless of race, transfer cases are far more punitive of youth of Color, particularly African American youths (Lehmann et al., 2019), and especially African American boys (Lehmann, Chiricos, & Bales, 2017; Lehmann et al., 2018, 2019). Two state gender–race intersection studies found Latinx and Black boys were sentenced the most harshly (Kupchik & Harvey, 2007; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2010). One stated that African American boys were “punished more harshly than other groups” in terms of being sentenced to prison (the most severe sentence) and that girls were less likely than boys, regardless of their race, ethnicity, and age, to be sentenced to prison (Lehmann et al., 2017). In terms of the prison sentence length, younger Black boys (aged 8–15 years) received significantly harsher sentences than older (16–17 years) white boys, white girls, and Black boys (Lehmann et al., 2017). This is sadly consistent with the Clinton administration’s characterization of African American boys as “superpredators,” which has been identified as erroneous but heavily impacted African American boys’ (and their loved ones’) lives at the deepest level of the CLS for youths (Forman, 2017; Middlemass, 2017; Stevenson, 2015).

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ON GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ADULT CRIME PROCESSING The Presence of Gender Bias in the Various Stages of the Adult CLS Police Decisions When research assessing gender differences in crime processing started in the 1970s and 1980s, far more research was conducted on police responses, with inconsistent findings as to whether police responses were gender equal (Visher, 1983), chivalrous (DeFleur, 1975; Krohn, Curry, & Nelson-Kilger, 1983; Mastrofski, Worden, & Snipes, 1995), or evil woman (Ghali & Chesney-Lind, 1986; Wilbanks, 1986). The strongest evil woman relationship, as noted in pervious sections, regarded age and status offending (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992; Hiller & Hancock, 1981; Sarri, 1983; Teilmann & Landry, 1981). Since the 1980s, far less research has addressed the role of gender in policing, perhaps because sentencing guidelines have become a significant CLS decision-making procedure. However, it is important to remember that decisions to arrest are crucial, because if there is no arrest, it is unlikely someone will be further processed in the CLS. An analysis of over 18 million traffic stops in North Carolina from 2002 to 2013, specifically referencing the “missing Black men” phenomenon, found “dramatic disparities in the rates at which black drivers, particularly young males, are searched and arrested as compared to similarly situated whites, women, or older drivers” (Baumgartner et al., 2017, p. 107). Consistent with other racial profiling research, Baumgartner and colleagues (2017) found that although police disproportionately searched African American men and women, the “hit rate” (likelihood of finding contraband such as weapons or drugs) was much higher among white women and men. Among Blacks and Whites, women are far less likely to be searched, but although there was no difference between Black and white

women’s likelihood of being searched in 2002, by 2013, Black women were 25% more likely to be searched, and once stopped, Black women were more likely than white women to be searched and arrested except for safe movement stops and DUIs (Baumgartner et al., 2017, p. 126). Also related to policing, profiling, and the intersection of racism and sexism—and anti-immigrant sentiment—is the disproportionate stopping and detainment of noncitizen Black women by airport authorities because of the mythical assumption that “Black immigrant equals [drug] courier, unless otherwise proven” (Agozino, 1997, p. 142). A North Carolina study of CLS-involved individuals in drug treatment found women were less likely to be rearrested than men (Maume, Lanier, & DeVall, 2018). A study of African Americans with substance use problems found that, regardless of gender, the more arrests earlier in life were related to more substance use problems and more arrests then and later in life, but given that boys/men were more likely to start their substance abuse problems in adolescence than were girls/women, their arrests started earlier while women’s arrests were more likely later in life (K. M. Green et al., 2019). A study on the likelihood of women on parole or probation in Michigan to be rearrested found older women, those with more past arrests, poorer women, and those with health limitations were more likely to be rearrested (Bohmert & DeMaris, 2018). Their neighborhood crime scores, substance abuse, depression, education, and having dependent children (being “familied”) were not related to their risk of rearrest. Although research documents the far greater presence of the mentally ill among women than men in jail (e.g., S. M. Lynch et al., 2014; Steadman et al., 2009), a meta-analysis of other research found among the mentally ill, men are more likely to have police contact (Livingston, 2016). Finally, an Add Health data study found “intimate partner abuse and forced sex significantly increase risk of adult arrest for women but not men, whereas physical abuse by a parent or caregiver significantly increases risk of adult incarceration for men but not women” (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016, p. 1049). An underresearched police response that could also be included in the victimization section of this book is police sexual violence (PSV): the sexual exploitation and abuse of women perpetrated by police officers (Kraska & Kappeler, 1995).3 PSV occurs on a continuum ranging from invasions of privacy, to coercive sex/rape (telling a person stopped for a crime that the officer will not arrest if that

person performs a sexual act), to using force to rape (see Kraska & Kappeler, 1995; Rabe-Hemp & Braithwaite, 2013; Stinson, Todak, & Dodge, 2015). The various unethical, unprofessional, violating, and exploitative behaviors included under PSV are perpetrated against a variety of women and girls, including women victims and women defendants. A specific example of PSV includes officers waiting outside bars for women exiting alone, following them, stopping them for drinking under the influence, and either coercing them to have sex in order to get out of tickets or outright raping them with force. Notably, not all of these women are drunk (Kraska & Kappeler, 1995; Rabe-Hemp & Braithwaite, 2013; Stinson, Todak, & Dodge, 2015). Given that many of these victims were stopped by the police for offenses, combined with the shame society and the CLS too often attribute to sexual abuse victims and that the sexual abuse victims typically report to the police but in this case the police perpetrated the abuse, these cases are likely highly underreported. 3

Clearly, people other than girls and women can be sexually abused, but almost all studies use this definition. Although a small percentage of officers perpetrate PSV, they have primarily been minimally, if at all, sanctioned and are instead merely relocated to a different department, a practice referred to the “officer shuffle” (Rabe-Hemp & Braithwaite, 2013). One study found 18% (Stinson et al., 2015) and another found 41% (Rabe-Hemp & Braithwaite, 2013) of the PSV offenders had more than one case. Notably, the repeat PSV offenders were found to be more likely to victimize youths and prostitutes than the first-time PSV offenders (Rabe-Hemp & Braithwaite, 2013). The largest study conducted on PSV (N = 771 cases) found 99.4% of PSV perpetrators were men and 91.4% of the victims were women/girls, making this a type of gender-based abuse (Stinson et al., 2015). Anecdotal data and suggestions indicate that the most marginalized women and girls would be those most at risk of PSV (e.g., Kraska & Kappeler, 1995), and a large study found this: Younger women, immigrant women, women with the least education, and queer/sexual minority women were more likely to report PSV (relative to older and cisgender women), and in terms of race, Latinas reported the highest prevalence (6.3%), followed by Black (2.3%), and white (1.1%) women (Fedina et al., 2018). Another study found women are less likely than men to know that they can refuse a police search (Kugler & Strahilevitz, 2019).

Pretrial Court Decisions Most of the research on sexism in courtroom processing focuses on judge, jury, and trial decisions, although fewer than 1 in 10 cases go to a full trial (Figueira-McDonough, 1985). Not only are pretrial decisions more common but much of the pretrial processing is not subject to the due process requirements of formal trials, leaving more room for discrimination. Court officials can get around sentencing guidelines when prosecutors reduce the charges in a manner that the defendant then faces a lower minimum and maximum sentence. Two U.S. federal studies on prosecutorial charge reduction were consistent with the chivalry hypothesis (B. D. Johnson, 2018; Shermer & Johnson, 2010). One found no racial bias (B. D. Johnson 2018), but the other found that young white women and young and older Latina women received more charge reductions than older white men, and that overall, women received even more crime reduction for drug than violent offenses. In terms of sentence length, young, male, Black, and Latinx defendants received the longest sentences (Shermer & Johnson, 2010). An important stage in crime processing is the detention versus pretrial release decision, which “refers to the terms under which a defendant may be allowed to remain free in the interim between arrest and case disposition” (Kruttschnitt & McCarthy, 1985, p. 158). Pretrial decisions on bail and detention are crucial not only in allowing defendants’ immediate freedom but also in case outcome. Because jailed defendants appear as “inmates” in court, they are more likely to be viewed as offenders (see Frazier & Cochran, 1986) and may be more likely to plead guilty or accept longer sentences (Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018). Clearly, affording bail is related to class, which is related to race and gender. Brennan’s (2006) study of women misdemeanants in New York City found that those who were released (on bail or their own recognizance) at pretrial “were 19% less likely to be sentenced to serve time in jail than those who were detained” prior to sentencing (p. 87). Ball and Bostaph’s (2009) study of over 20,000 felony defendants in large U.S. counties from 1990 to 2000 examined three pretrial decisions and two pretrial outcomes. The three pretrial decisions were whether bail was denied, whether the defendant was released on her or his own recognizance (ROR, i.e., being allowed to leave jail on an honor system that does not require any financial deposit),

and the defendant’s likelihood of “making bail” (being able to come up with the money to pay for bail). Before controlling for legal and extralegal variables, the pretrial decisions and outcomes indicated chivalrous responses: Women (1) were less likely to have bail denied (4% v. 7% for men), (2) were more likely to be ROR’d (40% vs. 29% of men), (3) had a lower average bail amount ($5,500 vs. $7,900 average for men), (4) were more likely to make bail (59% vs. 45% of men), and (5) were less likely to be detained in jail prior to trial (25% v. 40% of men) (Ball & Bostaph, 2009). Although legal variables impacted both genders’ pretrial decisions and outcomes in the predicted direction, legal factors impacted men more for the three pretrial decisions and first outcome, but affected women more for the most serious outcome, the likelihood of going to jail before trial. Ball and Bostaph found some gender differences that intersected with other variables. For example, Latinx identity frequently affected the dependent variables for both genders, in the direction of worse impacts for Latinx, and this was more extreme among men. A study of military court martials, however, found no gender differences in pretrial confinement (Breen & Johnson, 2018). B. P. Martinez, Petersen, and Omori’s (2019) Dade County study did not include gender–race intersections but found support for chivalry and race bias (against African Americans, Latinx, and biracial LatinxAfrican Americans compared with Whites). Case dismissal (also called declination) is a prosecutorial decision, when charged defendants are released and their cases are dismissed/declined instead of prosecuted (Vilcica, 2012, p. 103). Research examining gender bias in the decision to prosecute or dismiss charges largely supports the equal treatment hypothesis (D. A. Curran, 1983; Ghali & Chesney-Lind, 1986; Hartley & Tillyer, 2018; McCarthy, 1987; Nagel, Cardascia, & Ross, 1982; Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993; Teilmann & Landry, 1981), although there is also some support for chivalry, sometimes for specific offenses (Albonetti, 1986; T. W. Franklin, 2010; Gruhl, Welch, & Spohn, 1984; Spohn, Gruhl, & Welch, 1987; Vilcica, 2012; Wilbanks, 1986). A recent national study of federal prosecutors showed equal treatment for every offense dismissal except property offenses, which were consistent with the “evil woman” hypothesis (Hartley & Tillyer, 2018). Similar to dismissal, prosecutors may decide to reduce charges. The same large study of federal prosecutors found overall equal treatment in their decisions to reduce charges in the combined offense model, but gender was significant for specific offenses (discussed later in this chapter).

There has been little research conducted on the likelihood of pleading guilty or negotiating a plea since the 1980s. Research results from the 1980s were divided between finding support for either the gender equal treatment (D. A. Curran 1983; Gruhl et al., 1984) or the evil woman hypothesis (Figueira-McDonough, 1985; Ghali & Chesney-Lind, 1986). Figueira-McDonough’s (1985) is perhaps the most important of these studies because it was the most carefully conducted. She found that although women and men were equally likely to plead innocent, men were nearly twice as likely to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Furthermore, the use or possession of a gun added seriousness to women’s but not men’s offenses, and the presence of a witness was more likely to influence women than men to plead guilty. Women were less able to bargain and more willing to plead guilty, which may have been due to their limited access to attorneys, education, and experience (or power in general). Men were also more likely to receive both charge reductions and sentence reductions. Finally, only men were rewarded for their guilty pleas. Women’s compromised ability to plea bargain relative to men was also found in a more recent study (Davidson & Rosky, 2015). Ulmer and Bradley’s (2006) study using Pennsylvania sentencing data on violent offenses did not address the gender likelihood of plea bargaining, but did find that while defendants who exercised their right to a jury trial and were convicted were penalized in their sentencing relative to those who made a guilty plea, the impact of type of trial was not gendered.

Trial and Posttrial Decisions Most research on the likelihood of conviction (regardless of the sentence) indicates gender equal treatment (D. A. Curran, 1983; Ghali & Chesney-Lind, 1986; Gruhl et al., 1984; Koons-Witt, 2002; Steffensmeier et al., 1993), although two more recent studies support chivalry (T. Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; B. P. Martinez et al., 2019). Research on gender bias regarding the decision to incarcerate overwhelmingly supports the chivalry hypothesis (Albonetti, 1997; Butcher, Park, & Piehl, 2017; Cassidy & Gibbs, 2019; Chappell & Maggard, 2007; Daly & Bordt, 1995; Doerner, 2012; Farnworth & Teske, 1995; T. W. Franklin, 2017; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Gruhl et al., 1984; Hartley, Miller, & Spohn, 2010; Hester & Hartman, 2017; Hester & Sevigny, 2016; Leiber et al.,

2018; B. P. Martinez et al., 2019; Nagel et al., 1982; Nobiling, Spohn, & DeLone, 1998; Sevigny, 2009; Spohn, 1990; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006; Steffensmeier et al., 1993; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998; Ulmer & Bradley, 2006) more often than the equal treatment hypothesis (Ghali & Chesney-Lind, 1986; Kruttschnitt & Green, 1984). One study found chivalry in the length of jail sentences but equal treatment in prison sentences (Freiburger & Hilinski, 2013). Again, studies on incarceration reflect the importance of including the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity. A multiyear Florida study found chivalry regarding jail convictions, but for prison convictions, men of Color fared the worst, with the chivalry afforded all women, also given to white men (P. Warren, Chiricos, & Bales, 2012). A study on women misdemeanants in New York City found no direct effects of race/ethnicity on whether a woman received a jail sentence, but “class discrimination resulted in indirect racial discrimination” whereby Black and Latinx women’s greater likelihood of being unemployed, their lower likelihood of graduating from high school, and their weaker community ties (making it more difficult to show up for court) relative to white women, resulted in their greater likelihood than white women of going to jail (Brennan, 2006, p. 80). One study found judges are more likely to rely on extralegal variables of gender and race and age when sentencing between probation and jail—being younger “appears to further reduce perceptions of dangerousness” for white women and men, while being young increases Black men’s likelihood of receiving jail (instead of probation) (Freiburger & Hilinski, 2013). Another manner of looking for gender bias at the trial stage is the length of the (incarceration) sentence in months, and this consistently supports the chivalry hypothesis (Albonetti, 1997; Bradley & Engen, 2016; Cassidy & Gibbs, 2019; D. A. Curran, 1983; Davidson & Rosky, 2015; Doerner, 2012; Farrington & Morris, 1983; Hartley, Kwak, Park, & Lee, 2011; Hester & Hartman, 2017; Jordan & McNeal, 2016; Kruttschnitt, 1984; Nagel et al., 1982; Spohn, 1990; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006; Steffensmeier et al., 1993, 1998; Ulmer & Bradley, 2006; Ulmer, Eisenstein, & Johnson, 2010; Wilbanks, 1986), although a handful of studies found equal treatment in this sentencing severity (Daly & Bordt, 1995; Nobiling et al., 1998; Zatz, 1984), including one on court-martialed individuals in the U.S. military, which also found no gender differences in clemency (Breen & Johnson, 2018). Notably, studies have found overall chivalry until

disaggregating by the gender–race intersections, where it is documented that the extremely harsh sentencing of Black men is what makes the overall sentencing appear chivalrous (e.g., Leiber et al., 2018; Spohn et al., 1985). An Iowa district court study of adult criminal cases found Black men treated most harshly, followed more distantly by white women, then white men, and last by Black women (Leiber et al., 2018). One large study using court sentencing data from the 1970s through the 1990s reported that half of the cases were consistent with the chivalry hypothesis, and one quarter showed mixed or no effects; and chivalrous sentencing was most likely in felony offenses, cases prosecuted in felony courts, and in courts in urban areas (Daly & Bordt, 1995). A Pennsylvania sentencing severity study found an overall pattern of chivalry in both the decision to incarcerate and the length of sentence, but there were significant race-gender-age intersections: (1) Young Black men (18–29 years old) were treated most harshly by a large margin, (2) Black women aged 18–29 and 30–49 were more likely to be incarcerated than both Black and white men aged 50 and older, and (3) young white women were more likely to be imprisoned than white men 50 years and older (Steffensmeier et al., 1998). A rarely studied area is the consequences of the sentencing decisions in terms of the duration of the sentence and disparities in the amount of the sentence served. An exception is Bradley and Engen’s (2016) investigation, asking how well the court-ordered sentence correlates with the actual sentence served and whether this varies by gender and race. Using a large data set of 32 states and 15 offense types, they also examined the impact of “truth in sentencing” laws in 17 of the states with determinate sentencing in 8 of these 17 on sentences served. One of the few studies assessing whether receiving parole is gendered, a national U.S. study, found support for equal treatment (Matejkowski, Draine, Solomon, & Salzer, 2011). However, Lin, Grattet, and Petersilia’s (2010) California study examined three types of parole violations: absconding (leaving a jurisdiction against parole requirements or hiding from CLS officials),4 technical (violations imposed by parole), and criminal (committing a new crime while on parole). They found gender equal treatment regarding technical violations and chivalry for criminal violations—whereby men were 14% more likely than women to be returned to prison for this violation. For absconding, the results supported the “evil woman”

hypothesis: Women who absconded were 43% more likely to be returned to prison. Lin and his colleagues (2010) concluded, “Absconding might demonstrate to officials that a woman is not willing to submit to the informal social controls of community and family…. Perhaps male absconding is viewed as an expression of male autonomy and is, thus, more expected or perceived as a less serious breach” (p. 777). This is consistent with Hannah-Moffat and Yule’s (2011) qualitative parole study on federally sentenced women in Canada that found the parole boards failed to consider the lack of agency in the women’s lives and blamed them for and wanting them to take responsibility for their positions in life, including abusive partners and inability to fit the middle-class gender norm of women and mothers. 4

Absconding is a technical violation but Lin and colleagues (2010) separated it in their analysis because it was “the most prevalent type of technical violation” (p. 770). Wrongful conviction research is challenged with the difficulty of determining the actual count of such cases, given that many wrongfully convicted individuals do not have the resources to appeal and/or a lack of public outcry about their wrongful convictions. Moreover, even if an individual has a successful overturning of her or his case, it may not mean she or he was innocent (e.g., the case may be overturned due to procedural errors) (Ruesink & Free, 2007). Although women constitute about 10% of prisoners in the United States, they are between 3% and 5% of the wrongful conviction cases (Ruesink & Free, 2007), suggesting that they may have less access to attorneys and appeals and experience less public outcry on their behalf. On the other hand, perhaps there is chivalry in sentencing white women, and that is why that although Black people constitute about 13% of the U.S. population, they constitute 37% of women with wrongful convictions, and these seem most predominant for drug offenses. Ruesink and Free’s (2007) analysis of U.S. wrongful convictions since 1970 found that there were many gender differences regarding the convicting offense and the reason for the wrongful conviction. Half of the men and 36% of the women were convicted of murder, 7% of the men and 36% of the women were convicted of child abuse, 12% of the men and 19% of the women were convicted of drug offenses, and 17% of the men and 5% of the women were convicted of rape. Regarding the reasons for the wrongful convictions, women were more likely wrongfully convicted

due to unethical police/prosecutor actions, and men were more likely than women to have wrongful convictions due to eye witness error or witness falsification and to a false confession (Ruesink & Free, 2007). Another area of gender differences in court processing that has received little attention is death penalty sentencing. From 1632 to 2004, 566 women have been executed in the United States, constituting about 3% of those executed (see Messing & Heeren, 2009). Seitz’s (2005) evaluation of the 49 women executed between 1900 and 2004 found both the victims’ and the offenders’ race and social status, along with geographical area, impacted executions of women. More specifically, African American women were executed for convictions of murdering White domestic employers, and these cases occurred almost exclusively in the South (Seitz, 2005). Between 1976 and 1987, 14% of those charged with murder or nonnegligent manslaughter were women; however, only 2% of the prisoners on death row were female (Rapaport, 1991). This appears to be chivalrous treatment of female offenders, but a closer examination by Rapaport (1991) suggests otherwise. First, felony murders are rarely committed by women (4%–6%), and women are more likely to kill intimates in anger or defense than to kill strangers for a predatory purpose (such as economic or sexual gain). Second, among murder defendants, men are 4 times more likely than women to have a prior violent felony conviction. Third, women are far less likely than men to be accused of murdering multiple victims. Given these gender differences in murders and murderers, it is “logical” that women constitute only 2% of death row prisoners. Finally, one study depicts the extraordinarily high rate of lesbians among women on death row in the United States and documents ways their sexual minority status likely resulted in additionally harsh processing of their offenses (Farr, 2004).

Sentencing Guideline Research President Richard Nixon’s 1971 war on drugs was the beginning of a shift from the largely treatment-oriented federal response to drug users to a response that resulted in punishing and incarcerating drug users, culminating in the 1987 federal sentencing guidelines (see Lenox, 2011). Many states followed suit with similar sentencing

guidelines for state courts and judges. Since the 1980s, federal and state sentencing guidelines have been increasingly implemented to limit judicial discretion and discrimination through determinate sentencing. In 2005, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Booker that the federal sentencing guidelines should be “advisory” instead of “mandatory,” further complicating the departure options (described in the following paragraph) and the goal of limiting discretion based on defendants’ extralegal characteristics (Nutting, 2013). K. K. Cheng (2017) stresses how many of the sentencing guidelines address a range of factors courts should consider but fail to describe how, such that “ambiguity creates a void that other influences can fill” (p. 507). Ironically, then, particularly post Booker, most guidelines still allow discretion through sentencing departures and conditional releases. Sentencing departures allow judges under certain situations to decrease or increase the sentence prescribed in the determinate sentencing guideline, primarily for defendants with family responsibilities, particularly children. Similarly, conditional releases are legal steps to keep prisoners from having to complete their entire sentences (Bradley & Engen, 2016). In practice, almost all judicial departures are “downward” as opposed to “upward”; that is, the sentence in the guidelines is decreased rather than increased (Bradley & Engen, 2016; Doerner, 2012). Given that women have disproportionate child and family responsibilities, it is not surprising that women disproportionately receive downward departures (e.g., Doerner, 2012; Logue, 2011; Nutting, 2015; Wu & Spohn, 2010). Additionally, a study of 32 states found almost 70% of offenders received conditional releases, and these were disproportionately given to women (Bradley & Engen, 2016, p. 269). Similarly, a U.S. study on how prosecutors can skirt around sentencing guidelines in reducing charges found they do so in 12% of cases, disproportionately so for women (consistent with chivalry) (Shermer & Johnson, 2010). A rare study on upward departures also found women benefited (were less likely to get them) (M. Hamilton, 2017). Nutting’s (2015) unusual and massive national study focused on drug offenses in terms of downward departures for providing the prosecution with information (being “snitches” to get a downward departure) and found a somewhat complicated pattern, primarily due to gender–race intersections. First, prosecutors disproportionately provided women, Whites, and the more educated with downward departures, and their departures were for more time reduced. There

was “low demand” for both negotiating downward departure deals with and the amount of sentence reduction for defendants represented by court-appointed attorneys, and for African American, Latinx, and non–U.S. citizen, less educated, and drug defendants; however, within each of these racial categories, women benefited over men. Nutting (2015) speculates this might be because jurors are mostly white and will give more credibility to White and better educated “snitches,” which is a classic example of institutionalized racism, and taken together, these findings are certainly consistent with the “missing Black men” phenomenon. As expected, state and federal sentencing guidelines have, regardless of gender, led to more punitive sentencing (e.g., Bradley & Engen, 2016; Crow & Kunselman, 2009; Doerner, 2012; R. D. King, 2019). Post–guideline implementation sentencing indicates a strong pattern of chivalry (e.g., Bradley & Engen, 2016; Britt, 2009; Butcher et al., 2017; Cassidy & Gibbs, 2019; Doerner, 2012; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; R. D. King, 2019; Nutting, 2013, 2015; Ulmer, Kurlychek, & Kramer, 2007; Wu & Spohn, 2010), which is likely due at least in part to women disproportionately receiving downward departures (e.g., Bradley & Engen, 2016; Nutting, 2015; Shermer & Johnson, 2010). However, the results are more complicated. Far too often, the studies do not address gender, or if they do, they address gender and race but not the intersections. Also, many of the studies combine offense categories or focus on a single type of offense. Britt’s (2009) Pennsylvania study on the impact of sentencing guidelines found gender equal treatment regarding sentence for the median length of sentences, but at either end of the sentence lengths (the shortest and longest sentence lengths), women’s sentences were shorter than men’s (chivalrous treatment). A study comparing three Midwestern U.S. districts found no gender differences (equal treatment) in sentencing when the judges adhered to the guidelines, but judges were more likely to allow departures for women as a group and Whites as a group, and when they allowed departures, women received significantly shorter sentences than men and Blacks received significantly longer sentences than Whites (Wu & Spohn, 2010). On an encouraging note, Griffin and Wooldredge’s (2006) comparison of pre- and post-sentencing guidelines in Ohio found overall chivalry in both time periods; however, Black women received longer sentences than white women before but not after the implementation of guidelines. A large study on conditional releases

found they resulted in raced and chivalrous decisions on amount of sentence served: Black men received the worst disparity, followed by White and Latinx men, then Black women, and finally, Latina and white women (Bradley & Engen, 2016, p. 261). Similarly, Steffensmeier and Demuth’s (2006, p. 241) study of urban courts after sentencing guidelines found women (regardless of race) received chivalrous treatment, and among men, African American and Latino men received harsher outcomes than white men. Finally, an area where post–guideline implementation sentencing is more consistent with the evil woman hypothesis is in drug sentencing, whereby women, particularly women of Color, and especially African American women, have paid the heaviest prices in their sentencing (e.g., Crow & Kunselman, 2009; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Harmon & Boppre, 2018; Sevigny, 2009).

Gender Differences in Crime Processing Based on the Type of Offense Most studies assessing CLS gender processing focus on overall crimes, combined violent crimes, combined property crimes, and drug crimes. The best research that has been conducted on prostitution sentencing was published in 2019 by Updegrove and colleagues. The few studies that specified robbery found chivalry, with one study also finding that people of Color received longer sentences among both women and men (Davidson & Rosky, 2015) and another finding older white men and all Black men were more likely to go to jail than were women (P. Warren et al., 2012). The findings for one of the few studies that assessed defendant gender in CLS outcomes for sexual assault charges were consistent with the chivalry hypothesis regarding the likelihood of being convicted but the evil woman hypothesis for the sentencing: When women were convicted of sexual assault, they had longer sentences (Davidson & Rosky, 2015, p. 364).

Overall Offending Patterns for Combined Violent and Property Offenses

In the 1980s, feminist scholars indicated that chivalry is more likely reserved for women and girls whose offenses are more in keeping with gender stereotypes, including being less serious, less violent, and less “masculine” (Chesney-Lind, 1987; Naffine, 1987; Nagel & Hagan, 1983; Sarri, 1983, 1987). Some 1980s and 1990s studies, however, found gender equal treatment across offense type (Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Steury & Frank, 1990), and far more found chivalry more likely for more serious and violent crimes and less likely, even gender-neutral outcomes, for more minor and property offenses (Steffensmeier et al., 1993; Visher, 1983; Zingraff & Thomson, 1984). In one of these studies, the exception was for child abandonment for which the evil woman pattern emerged, consistent with the sexist expectation that women are more responsible than men for children (Zingraff & Thomson, 1984). Turning to research in this millennium, for overall property offenses, chivalry (D. E. Olson et al., 2000; F. S. Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006) was more commonly confirmed than evil woman (Hartley & Tillyer, 2018). For overall violent offenses in research since 2000, the research was evenly split between supporting chivalry (Ball & Bostaph, 2009; Hartley & Tillyer, 2018) and equal treatment (F. S. Rodriguez et al., 2006; P. Warren et al., 2012). One study found chivalry for violent offense sentence length but equal treatment for the likelihood of incarceration for violent offenses (F. S. Rodriguez et al., 2006).

Drug Offending. Although most research published in this millennium found chivalry in CLS drug offense decision-making (Brennan, 2002; Dierenfeldt et al., 2019; Koch, Lee, & Lee, 2016; H. Nguyen & Reuter, 2012; D. E. Olson et al., 2000; N. Rodriguez & Griffin, 2005), some studies indicated evil woman processing (Ball & Bostaph, 2009; Chatsverykova, 2017; Hartley & Tillyer, 2018). As noted in the previous chapter, Whites and men/boys are more likely to use and sell drugs than other races/ethnicities and women/girls, respectively, yet studies document African Americans, followed by Latinx, are disproportionately likely to be sanctioned for these offenses in the CLS, and this is particularly extreme among young Black men/boys (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; M. Davis et al., 2007; Koch et al., 2016; P. Warren et al., 2012). A national study on self-reported marijuana use and marijuana arrests from 1982 to 2008 found no

gender, race, or age differences in the likelihood of arrest until 1991 and later, when men/boys, African Americans, and youths were most at risk of arrest (H. Nguyen & Reuter, 2012). Olson and colleagues’ (2000) Illinois study of adult probationers provided evidence supporting the evil woman hypothesis, attributing women’s greater likelihood of being classified as felons (compared with men) to DUIs being classified as misdemeanors whereas drug offenses were classified as felonies. Although women were far more likely to be given urinalysis drug tests, there were no differences in “hot” (positive) drug tests. Men were also more likely to have technical parole violations and be rearrested during probation, yet there were no gender differences for revocations of probation. A study conducted solely on women in New York City found Latinas, followed by White, and then African American women, were most likely to receive jail sentences for drugs (Brennan, 2002). Similarly, Crow and Kunselman’s (2009, p. 191) extensive study of female drug offenders in Florida found racial disparity among women both before and after new guidelines adopted in 1998. Specifically, under the “old” 1994 guidelines, (1) white women received shorter sentences than Latinx and African American women for several drug offenses, and especially drug-trafficking; and (2) African American women had longer prison sentences than white women for seconddegree drug possession, but white women received longer sentences than African American women for second-degree sale, manufacturing, and purchasing drugs. Under the “new” 1998 guidelines, Crow and Kunselman (2009) found “slightly more evidence of interactions involving race and drug offense type” such that African American women received longer prison terms than white women for five of the eight drug offense categories (p. 209).

Homicide. Homicide research in this millennium supports chivalry in CLS responses (Davidson & Rosky, 2015; C. A. Franklin & Fearn, 2008). One national study found that men who kill women receive significantly harsher sentences than any other gender dyads (men who kill men, women who kill men, and women who kill women) (C. A. Franklin & Fearn, 2008). Defendants who were younger, male, and had prior felony convictions, and those who killed a woman or older person, typically received the longest sentences, but there were no differences in sentences based on race dyads (interracial or

interracial). Another national study distinguished murder and manslaughter sentencing, and among women’s murder sentences and men’s manslaughter sentences, people of Color received longer sentences (Davidson & Rosky, 2015). Auerhahn (2007) found the chivalry in homicide outcomes most pronounced among intimate partner homicides (IPHs), where men not only receive harsher sentences than women, but men also receive harsher sentences for killing their partners than they do for killing someone else. Auerhahn attributes this to growing awareness of women’s disproportionate likelihood of being killed by current or former male partners, and women disproportionately committing IPHs in self-defense. Of course, not all IPHs committed by women are in self-defense, but most of them do include a history of violence by the man that the woman subsequently kills (see Belknap, Larson, et al., 2012).

Prostitution. Legal scholar Simon-Kerr (2008) discusses the “unchastity impeachment”—that a woman’s honor and credibility are linked to her sexual history. Most people associate this with rape victims, but it has also been used against women seeking land titles and women defendants in assault, arson, and wrongful death cases. Thus, in addition to rape cases, Simon-Kerr claims that sexual histories are most commonly used against prostitutes, to impeach their credibility, including when they are case witnesses. Updegrove and colleagues’ (2019) recent and excellent Houston, Texas, study on prostitution (mentioned in the previous chapter) found this not only to be a highgendered crime among those arrested (97% of buyers, 77% of facilitators, and 23% of sellers/prostitutes were male), but multivariate models found (1) sellers were more likely than buyers to be convicted, the harshest outcome; (2) among sellers (prostitutes) men “were less likely [than women] to have their case dismissed and more likely to accept a plea deal”; (3) among sellers, Latinx and Asian American, relative to White sellers, were “more likely to have their case dismissed and less likely to be convicted”; and (4) both Latinx and African Americans buyers were more likely to be convicted than White buyers (p. 1609). Another large study of women’s arrests for prostitution in New York City found white women received more lenient sentences than African American or Latina women (Brennan, 2002).

CHIVALRY REMAINS COMPLICATED Some research indicates that for both leniency and harsher CLS outcomes, women’s sentencing is more impacted than men’s by extralegal and cultural variables, whereas men’s is more likely than women’s to be impacted by the legal variables such as prior record and offense seriousness (e.g., Ball & Bostaph, 2009; Boritch, 1992; Flavin, 2001; Freiburger, 2011; Kruttschnitt & McCarthy, 1985; Nagel et al., 1982; Steffensmeier et al., 1993). This section attempts to address some of these complicated extralegal and cultural variables. Recall that the selectivity hypothesis, a corollary hypothesis to the chivalry hypothesis, was posited by Farnworth and Teske (1995) to test whether chivalrous treatment was more available to white women and girls than women and girls of Color. In addition to being applied to race/ethnicity, the selectivity hypothesis is also appropriately applied to factors such as sexual minority and immigration status (L. M. Dodge, 2002) and perhaps such other cultural phenomena such as expectations of who is responsible for child care, home care, and so on. Also, as stated before, it can get dicey trying to determine in some cases whether a variable is a cultural or extralegal variable. Therefore, in this section, until there is more research on distinguishing gender from sexism, race from racism, and so on, such extralegal variables will be indistinguishable from cultural variables.

Extralegal and Cultural Variables and Support for the Chivalrous Corollary Selectivity Hypothesis Race/Ethnicity An overwhelming amount of research, much of it already cited in this chapter, supports the selectivity hypothesis (Farnworth & Teske, 1995) in terms of race/ethnicity: CLS outcomes are harsher for Black and Brown than for white girls/women (Agozino, 1997; Albonetti, 1997; Ball & Bostaph, 2009; Bortner, Sunderland, & Winn, 1985; Brennan, 2002, 2006; Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; A. M. Butler, 1997; Chauhan, Burnette, & Repucci, 2010; Chauhan, Reppucci, et al., 2010; Chauhan wet al., 2009; Chigwada-Bailey, 1997; Crow &

Kunselman, 2009; Datesman & Aickin, 1984; Datesman & Scarpitti, 1980; L. M. Dodge, 2002; Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Fedock & Sarantakos, 2017; Freiburger & Burke, 2011; Horowitz & Uggen, 2019; Krohn et al., 1983; Kruttschnitt, 1981; Leiber & Mack, 2003; L. D. Moore & Padavic, 2010; Nanda, 2012; Richie, 2012; Salcido & Menjivar, 2012; Sarri, 1983; Seitz, 2005; Spohn et al., 1987; Steffensmeier et al., 1998; Visher, 1983; P. Warren et al., 2012).5 Seitz (2005) states that relative to white women/girl defendants who are viewed as more amenable to rehabilitation, African American women/girl defendants are stereotyped as more “aggressive” and “virile,” which is used to justify their harsher punishments. Moreover, a study of over 12,000 Black women incarcerated in North Carolina from 1995 to 2009 found lighter skinned Black women had shorter prison sentences and served less time than darker skinned Black women (Viglione, Hannon, & DeFina, 2011). 5

One exception to the impact of race in CLS outcomes is Logue’s (2011) sentencing guidelines study where defendants’ race/ethnicity (Black, Latinx, and White) was unrelated to their likelihood of downward departure when controlling for family status, marital status, and gender. Another study allowing the complexities of factors in individuals’ lives is Chauhan and her colleagues’ (2009) recidivism study of White and Black girls sentenced to a secure facility in Virginia. They found that regardless of race, girls had similar rates of witnessing and experiencing violence, but Black girls were more likely to live in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and “witnessing neighborhood violence was associated with recidivism for Black girls while parental physical abuse was associated with recidivism for white girls” (Chauhan et al., 2009, p. 532). Thus, they conclude, “Indeed, the disproportionate representation of minorities in the justice system appears to be related to the neighborhoods within which they reside,” including the increased police monitoring (Chauhan et al., 2009, p. 548). Further confirming the significance of disproportionate police presence in the neighborhood, although the Black and white girls self-reported similar offending levels, Black girls were more likely than white girls to be arrested, until the analysis controlled for neighborhood, and then race was no longer significant (Chauhan, Reppucci, et al., 2010).

Class, Age, Mental Health, and Employment Status Although selective chivalry focuses on race, it has also been supported for class and age: Poorer women and girls receive more severe CLS responses than wealthier women and girls (Brennan, 2006; Butler, 1997; Chauhan et al., 2009; L. M. Dodge, 2002; Doerner & Demuth, 2010; Kruttschnitt, 1981; Worrall, 1990), and younger women and girls tend to receive harsher punishments from the CLS than older women (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992; Farrington & Morris, 1983; Hiller & Hancock, 1981; Krohn et al., 1983; Shermer & Johnson, 2010; Steffensmeier et al., 1998; Visher, 1983). Access to community health services decreases drastically when a person turns 18 or 19, at precisely the same time that many mental illness behaviors start tracking people into the CLS (Pullmann, 2010). A study of young people (16–25 years old) who had ever received services from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health found that 46% of the young women and 69% of the young men had had at least one arrest (M. Davis et al., 2007). For both genders, substance use disorder and conduct disorder diagnoses increased the likelihood of overall, violent, drug, and nuisance (but not property) charge arrests (Pullmann, 2010). It appeared that developmental disorders placed young women at risk of violent arrests and young men at risk of nuisance arrests. Only among young men with developmental disorders was race related to arrest —Black young men were far more likely to be arrested for drugs even when the other variables were held constant (Pullmann, 2010). A national study of women aged 18 to 25 found each of the following mental health concerns associated with likelihood of arrest: anxiety, depression, serious mental illness, drug/alcohol problem, suicide ideation, and suicide attempts (Fedock & Sarantakos, 2017). A large U.S. study of violent offenses found “the presence of a mental illness” lengthened men’s but shortened women’s sentence lengths, indicating the courts stereotype mental illness as diminishing women’s capacity and enhancing men’s future dangerousness likelihood (Davidson & Rosky, 2015), consistent with Jeffries and Bond’s (2013) blameworthiness reason for CLS chivalry.

Compared to studies published in the 2000s, studies published in the 1980s and 1990s more regularly examined employment status as it relates to sentencing; findings were mixed. Importantly, this research found that the courts punished women who were not “homemakers,” more harshly sanctioning women for working outside of the home (Boritch, 1992; Kruttschnitt, 1981, 1982). One study found no gender differences in employment status on sentencing (Kruttschnitt 1984), another found employment status affected men’s more than women’s pretrial release likelihood (Kruttschnitt & McCarthy, 1985), and another found that being employed decreased the length of men’s sentences, while being unemployed decreased the length of women’s sentences (Crew, 1991). Studies of probation and parole officers found they were more concerned with men’s than women’s employment problems, and women reported equal or more severe employment problems (Erez, 1989, 1992). Most of the research on crime and (un)employment in the 2000s has focused on the impact of having a record on finding employment, with sparse research on whether (un)employment status impacts sentencing. An exception, focusing solely on women, found their employment status was unrelated to their risk of going to jail (Brennan, 2002).

Sexual Minority Status (SMS) Since research started asking participants’ sexual identities, studies report the overrepresentation of sexual minority status (SMS) girls and women among both juvenile and adult offenders, suggesting disproportionately harsh actions (“evil woman”) for these offenders (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Belknap, Holsinger, et al., 2012; Conover-Williams, 2014; Farr, 2004; Himmelstein & Brückner, 2011; Hirschtritt, Dauria, Marshall, & Tolou-Shams, 2018; Schaffner, 2004). In particular is Himmelstein and Brückner’s (2011) large, national study, which found that SMS youth and young adults were more likely than their non-SMS counterparts to experience CLS sanctions (i.e., stopped by the police, arrested as a juvenile, and convicted of a crime) than their non-SMS counterparts. Further, the SMS girls/young women reported significantly harsher CLS sanctioning than the SMS boys/young men (Himmelstein & Brückner, 2011). One study found that among incarcerated youths, the SMS youths were not only far more likely to be girls (than boys) but also far more likely to be of Color (Belknap, Holsinger, et al., 2012), although another

found SMS was not distinguishable by race for youths in the CLS (Hirschtritt et al., 2018).

Marital Status Recall the marriage effect described in Chapter 3 and used in life course theory and often in presentencing investigations to determine offenders’ sentences. Applied almost solely to men historically, marriage was found to be a protective factor against recidivism. One longitudinal study found that romantic partners and marriages were unrelated to recidivism (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002). Some CLS decision-making research found that being married helped female but not male defendants, and being unmarried (single, divorced, or separated) hurt women but not men (L. M. Dodge, 2002; Erez, 1992; Farrington & Morris, 1983; Nagel et al., 1982). One study found that marital status was unrelated to the sentencing of women, whereas men were treated more harshly if they were married than if they were not (Bickle & Peterson, 1991). A study in New York City found that, overall, married women were less likely than unmarried women to be sentenced to incarceration, but when the analysis included only the African American women, married women were more likely than unmarried women to be incarcerated (Brennan, 2002). Another New York City study found that among women misdemeanants, married women were less likely to be sentenced to jail; this finding was spurious because married women were also less likely to have prior convictions (Brennan, 2006). A large study of federal sentencing found being married helped men but not women to receive downward sentencing (Doerner, 2012). Finally, one study found that being married decreased the chances of both genders being held in detention, but this was afforded to men only when they had dependents as well as being married (Daly, 1989b). Findings where women are rewarded in CLS outcomes for being married are ironic given a study that found with the exception of violent offenses, becoming intimately involved with men appeared to be a risk factor for women’s offending (Alarid, Burton, & Cullen, 2000).

Familied Status

Several studies, most of them more recent, describe inconsistent or more complicated patterns of receiving leniency or being punished for being familied. Brennan’s (2006) study of misdemeanant women in New York City criminal courts is one of the few that found familied women were more likely than their non-familied counterparts to be sentenced to jail. In contrast to most studies, Griffin and Wooldredge’s (2006) Ohio study found before sentencing guidelines the number of children women had increased their likelihood of conviction and longer sentences, but the sentencing guidelines halted this discrimination. Consistent with drug offenses as exceptions to chivalry noted in other studies, a study of drug offending women found familied women received longer sentences than non-familied women (Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001). Freiburger (2011) conducted the most detailed study of familied offenders using four years of data from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on drug and property offenders. She found that living with a child and paying child support decreased the odds of incarceration, regardless of gender, but oddly, being a financial provider to children helped only those not living with their children. Living with a child had similar impacts on men’s and women’s likelihood of incarceration, except for men living with a child reduced the likelihood of incarceration for only property, not drug, offenses. Notably, a parent who simply “visited” their children received no leniency in sentencing. Being employed actually hurt women who were caretakers and financial providers of their children; they were more likely to be incarcerated than unemployed women (Freiburger, 2011). A large study of women drug offenders found no difference in sentence length between mothers and non-mothers, but among mothers, those living with their children prior to their arrest received shorter sentences than the mothers who were not (Cho &Tasca, 2019). Similarly, Flavin’s (2001) mid-Atlantic city study of African Americans with cocaine offenses documents the intricacies and intersections of sexism and racism in sentencing. Family status did not impact men’s sentencing, but women who were sole providers for their children were less likely to be incarcerated if they had no other person to take over child care, whereas women who provided their children’s care but lived with another family member able to take over child care were more likely to be incarcerated (Flavin, 2001). Thus, African American women defendants with child-care responsibilities benefit from having these duties taken into account in ways that African American men defendants do not. Given, the men’s relative lack of

leniency for caring for their children, Flavin (2001) concluded that the CLS chivalry in this sample of African American cocaine defendants, reproduced patriarchy with the suggestion that “women’s place—but not men’s—is in the home” (p. 630). In addition, it appears the findings in Flavin’s study and most of the other empirical studies herein are consistent with the “missing Black men” phenomenon and the notion that Black men’s place is in prison. Logue’s (2011) federal sentencing guidelines study found both women and men who were familied and charged with drug offenses received more punitive responses than similarly situated women and men who were not familied. She also found this intersected with the defendants’ relationship status: Among both men and women, familied cohabitating (unmarried) defendants were less likely to receive downward departure than were unfamilied cohabitating defendants. Being married and unfamilied benefited men in their likelihood of a downward departure, but being married and unfamilied hurt women’s chances of a downward departure (Logue, 2011, p. 703). We cannot know if these judges’ decisions are conscious, but they indicate patriarchal discrimination regarding who should and should not have children and the inevitability of sexist sentencing. This and other studies did not address same-sex partners (with or without legal marriage) and their lack of equal marriage rights in most of the United States (until 2015). Another irony is that while being familied has been documented to benefit women’s sentencing more than men’s, except for drug charges, this is far more extreme when examining pregnant women and girls. “In July 2014, Tennessee became the first state in the country to pass a law criminalizing illegal drug use during pregnancy” (Ocen, 2017, p. 1163). Laws criminalizing drug use during pregnancy have been almost exclusively directed at poor women of Color (Flavin, 2009; Goodwin, 2013; Ocen, 2017). Morever, research indicates comparable drug use during pregnancy across White, African American, and Latinx women (see Ocen, 2017; Springer, 2010). Ocen (2017) poignantly makes the case that the state should have an “interest in promoting fetal health” and “the health consequences of drug use for both mothers and their children” but argues that the “use of the criminal law to advance this interest is irrational and counterproductive” (p. 1172).

SUMMARY Although research findings on gender and criminal legal system (CLS) decision-making is most consistent with (i.e., supportive of) the chivalry hypothesis, this is often when gender–race intersections and factors related to gender are not included in the statistical models. First, including gender–race intersections is far less likely to result in “chivalrous” findings, because what appears as bias against all men and boys is due to extraordinarily harsh biases against African American men and boys (Gaub & Holtfreter, 2015; Leiber et al., 2018; Spohn et al., 1985). Second, in addition to race, Gaub and Holtfreter’s (2015) review of gender and sentencing identifies class, age, family status, and citizenship status as necessary variables, yet of all of these, only age is more commonly included in research models. It is vital to resist essentialist explanations and models that fail to account for gender–race intersections and other potentially significant variables such as sexual minority, familied, mental illness status, and immigrant status. “For example, if judges do not like to incarcerate custodial parents, and women are more likely to be custodial parents than men, we may see substantial ‘unexplained’ gender gaps” (Butcher et al., 2017, p. S231). Thus, chivalrous processing, when it exists, may be due more to an inherently unequal society in child-care demands, economic opportunities, marginalized power in intimate and other relationships, and access to such basic needs as housing than to an inherently biased CLS (see Ocen, 2012; D. E. Roberts, 2012). Sentencing guidelines were implemented for the most part to limit decision-making based on extralegal characteristics, primarily gender, race, and class. But some of these guidelines have also been part of the war on drugs and other more punitive responses. Research on sentencing guidelines often shows an improvement in that crime processing is more influenced by legal characteristics, yet many of the post–guideline implementation analyses show extralegal factors still influence the decisions. Ironically, the research on sentencing guidelines indicates women as a group may do better (receive chivalry) with guidelines, particularly when there are more allowable departures, but men of Color do worse under these policies. Moreover, the sentencing guideline research indicates white women benefit from chivalry more than do women of Color, but this may be masked when studies do not distinguish by offenses as well as the intersections of race and gender. Sevigny (2009) and Gaskins

(2004) argue that many women drug offenders are victims of circumstances that the sentencing guidelines research does not address, that is, the context of these women’s cases (e.g., were they simply at a home where a drug bust occurred, but they were not involved?). Sentencing guidelines research also fails to account for the highly policed neighborhoods in poor communities of Color that place poorer adults and youth of Color in more precarious situations that make them more vulnerable to entering the CLS (see Nanda, 2012; Ocen, 2012; D. E. Roberts, 2012).

7 INCARCERATING, PUNISHING, AND “TREATING” OFFENDING WOMEN AND GIRLS Black women across the country, including Sandra Bland, Kindra Chapman, Joyce Curnell, Ralkina Jones, Alexis McGovern, and Raynetta Turner, as well as countless others that have not received national media attention, were all found hanged in their jail cells, a fate which presumably could have been avoided had they received social and legal protection. —Battle (2016, p. 128)

Like homeless and mentally ill women, women prisoners are among the most neglected, oppressed, and misrepresented groups in society. And the overlap of women who fit into two or all of these three groups is not a coincidence. A study of incarcerated women found that two fifths were living on the streets, in a shelter, or in temporary housing (with the majority living on the streets), and those with unstable housing/homeless/houseless were more likely to have prostitution arrests, been in substance addiction treatment, and be survivors of both childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual assault (Asberg & Renk, 2015). Even the earliest research conducted on U.S. women prisoners, published in the first few of decades of the 1900s, documented the grave circumstances they often lived in prior to prison (e.g., L. S. Bryant, 1918; Guibord, 1917; H. W. Rogers, 1917; Spaulding, 1915); the deplorable conditions of their prisons (or their units in men’s prisons) (H. W. Rogers, 1922); and the overrepresentation of women of Color (L. S. Bryant, 1918; Forncrook, 1924; Growdon, 1931), immigrant women (L. S. Bryant, 1918; Forncrook, 1924; Sanborn, 1925; Spaulding, 1915), and women with very poor psychological (L. S. Bryant, 1918; K. B. Davis, 1913; Guibord, 1917; Sanborn, 1925; Spaulding, 1915, 1918) and/or physical (L. S. Bryant, 1918; Spaulding, 1915, 1918) health (see Belknap, 2010a, for a review of these articles). Yet, women offenders were not even mentioned in the massive 1967 report commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson, a national study of crime by the U.S. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967). U.S. incarceration is an apt application of structural sexism, the “systematic gender inequality in power and resources” that operates at the macro (state), meso (marital dyad), and micro (individual) levels (Homan, 2019, p. 487). Three reasons have been offered for the invisibility of, and disproportionate access to, programming and resources for incarcerated women/girls (relative to incarcerated men/boys): (1) Women have constituted a small proportion (typically 4%–7%) of the total prison and jail population, (2) generally women are incarcerated for less dangerous and serious crimes than men, and (3) incarcerated women are less likely than incarcerated men to “riot, destroy property and make reform demands” (Mann, 1984, p. 190). Thus, the state excuses limited programming and resources for incarcerated women by their smaller representation among the incarcerated and because they are less criminal and, once incarcerated, more cooperative. The “small percentage” excuse only goes so far when recognizing that in 2017 in the United States, 111,360 women (7.5% of prisoners) (Bronson & Carson, 2019) and 6,598 girls (15.1% of all incarcerated youth) (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2019) were incarcerated. Additionally, because there are far fewer women/girls than men/boys sentenced to incarceration, there are far fewer adult and juvenile detention/prison facilities, which makes visits from family and friends more difficult and thus less likely. Yet, the geographic isolation of women’s prisons is not the only reason women prisoners get so few visitors. Some research indicates that family are less invested in visiting or accepting collect phone calls from incarcerated women/girls than from men/boys (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). One study reported that almost half of the incarcerated women had lost touch with their families. In most cases, the women repeatedly contacted family members but, after

no response, gave up because the rejection was so painful (M. Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001). Historically, women prisoners, who have suffered the dual stigmas of “woman” and “prisoner,” have been neglected even within the women’s rights and prisoners’ rights movements (Haft, 1980). In fact, the first decade of U.S. federal court prisoners’ rights cases, the 1960s, failed to benefit women prisoners (Leonard, 1983), and whereas the many cases filed on behalf of male prisoners in North America in the 1970s addressed the very real inhumane institutional conditions, the few cases female prisoners brought were to obtain parity with the inhumane and unfair conditions and opportunities in men’s prisons (Faith, 1993). Thus, despite their significantly worse conditions and opportunities, incarcerated women are far less apt than incarcerated men to file lawsuits against prisons and jails (Aylward & Thomas, 1984; Barry, 1991; J. M. Pollock, 1998; Rafter, 1989; Schupak, 1986; Van Ochten, 1993; Weisburd, Wheeler, Waring, & Bode, 1991). Reading this chapter it is important to remember that given the significant overrepresentation of African American and Latinx women/girls (among incarcerated women/girls) (e.g., Braithwaite, Treadwell, & Ariola, 2008; Lopez & Pasko, 2017; Richie, 2012), the many ways in which incarcerated women/girls experience deplorable conditions are raced; that is, structural racism exists in women and girls’ carceral systems.

THE HISTORY OF INCARCERATING WOMEN AND GIRLS Punishment Historians have noted that overall, offending women and men were subject to the same penalties in preindustrial societies; most of the penalties were noncustodial and included burnings at the stake, whippings, hangings, and public ridicule (Cooper, 1993; R. P. Dobash, Dobash, & Gutteridge, 1986; Heidensohn, 1985; Allison Morris, 1987). Importantly, the exceptions where offenders’ punishments were gendered were largely to women’s disadvantage and involved punishing them for crimes against their husbands, violating the standards for sexuality, or both. This history is fraught with a confusing mingling of women and girls’ sins and crimes, where sins have almost everything to do women and girls’ sexuality. For example, during the Middle Ages, it was not uncommon for women to be burned to death for committing adultery or murdering a spouse, whereas men who were adulterers and wife killers were rarely considered offenders (Perry, 1991, p. 4). Similarly, during colonial times in the United States (1620 to the 1760s), women were punished far more harshly than men for adultery (Feinman, 1983; B. B. Rosenbaum, 1938), routinely punished for bastardy (having a baby out of wedlock) (Craig, 2009), and could be punished by the church as well as the state (Feinman, 1983). Public humiliation was also more common in the punishing of women than men, such as forcing women convicts to give confessions before they were hanged (Cooper, 1993; R. P. Dobash et al., 1986; Feinman, 1983). Although confinement in castles, monasteries, and nunneries existed during the Middle Ages, confining women and men for prolonged periods was unusual until the late 16th century and was not accepted as the most appropriate response to criminals and deviants until the 19th century (R. P. Dobash et al., 1986). The history of punishing and incarcerating women and girls is replete with both benevolent and hostile sexism and linking women and girls’ consensual sexuality with their offending. Nowhere is this more poignant than the Magdalene Houses that cropped up in the Middle Ages in Europe, spread to North America and Australia, and existed through the 1990s. The “houses” were named after Mary Magdalene, the prostitute in the Bible, and were run by a combination of the Catholic Church and the state in most countries. In the earliest versions of these houses, women and girls’ participation was voluntary or they were referred by their families or clergy (Crowley & Kitchin, 2008; Perry, 1991). In many places Magdalene Houses (also known as Magdalene Asylums) were not solely for prostitutes but also for girls and women having sex outside of marriage, particularly single mothers, but also even for poverty-stricken and orphan girls because they were at risk of becoming prostitutes. Perhaps not surprisingly, in addition to being hugely exploitative of the girls and women, a number

of these “houses” became far more punitive and prison-like, or worse. In Ireland they became called Magdalene Laundries and were in existence until they were shut down in 1996 (H. McDonald, 2013). In the last 70 years they were open, the Magdalene Laundries detained and forced labor (run by nuns) on 10,000 women and girls, known as the “Maggies,” “simply because they were unmarried mothers, orphans or regarded as somehow morally wayward” (H. McDonald, 2013). In the early 1700s in England, a new alternative for a commuted death sentence was to transport convicts to the American colonies and Australia with various work sentences. One in eight of those sent to Australia were women. They were usually young (in their teens or 20s) and typically were transported for a first offense, such as a petty theft (R. P. Dobash et al., 1986). The conditions for the transported women were far worse than those for the transported men, and the women’s “sentences” usually included being forced into prostitution in Australia (R. P. Dobash et al., 1986). In the first prisons in England and North America, women were incarcerated in the same institutions until the 1850s in England, the 1870s in the United States (and 1915 in the western United States), and 1913 in Canada. Usually these prisons provided separate rooms for women and men, but both sexes were under the supervision of exclusively male wardens and guards. A similar regime was used for both male and female prisoners because the system was designed to respond to the majority of prisoners—the men (A. M. Butler, 1997; Cooper, 1993; L. M. Dodge, 2002; Heidensohn, 1985; Allison Morris, 1987). Although most historical accounts of imprisoning women and men together emphasize their similar treatment, the differences that existed were significant. First, women prisoners worked genderstereotyped roles in keeping the prison running; second, and more importantly, the women prisoners faced a considerable risk of rape. In Canada, women were first incarcerated in 1835 in the Kingston Penitentiary for Men. Given their small numbers, their incarceration experience was predicated on what best served the administration and the male prisoner population; thus, their primary task was making and mending the male prisoners’ bedding and clothing (Cooper, 1993). Even so, these women were deemed “more difficult to manage than the men” by the first (male) wardens and thus were subjected to extreme corporal punishment (Cooper, 1993, p. 37). Moreover, incarcerated women were often blamed for the “sexual disturbances”— their rapes (Rafter, 1985, p. 12). There existed a policy of calculated neglect of women in the men’s prisons, where the sexual abuse often resulted in pregnancy and the floggings sometimes caused death (Feinman, 1981, 1983). A. M. Butler’s (1997) account of the Huntsville, Texas, prison in 1874 describes the 14 women convicts, 12 of whom were African American, roaming the prison yard carrying babies “conceived and born in the penitentiary” (p. 136). One older African American prisoner gave birth to a biracial baby whose conception was caused by the White prison doctor, who bragged about how he had coercive sex with the prisoner. The guards punished the woman by taking the baby, publicly shaving the prisoner’s head, and putting her in the dungeon (A. M. Butler, 1997). In the Arizona Territorial Prison in 1890, a 21-yearold prisoner (who had an 8-year-old child) was moved by the male superintendent of the prison to an open shack in the prison yard, where guards and men prisoners had sexual access to rape her (A. M. Butler, 1997). Thus, prison-sanctioned rape was a common theme in these prisons designed for incarcerated men but holding convicted women. In addition to the women’s substantial risk of rape, services for incarcerated women were substantially limited relative to those for incarcerated men, and the authorities were unwilling to hire women guards to supervise them because of their small numbers. Compared to the men, they were secluded and had less access to medical and religious offerings in the prison, and were not allowed to walk to workshops, meals, or exercise yards but rather had their needlework and food brought to their quarters where they stayed their entire sentences (Rafter, 1985). A. M. Butler’s (1997) description of women in western U.S. prisons from 1865 to 1915 is similar: “Women either stayed in their cells in forced inactivity, provided sexual diversion for male officials and inmates, cleaned and cooked for officers, plowed and planted, or worked merciless hours in the prison industry” (p. 192). The history of punishing and incarcerating women is strongly entangled in a “war on morality,” focusing on women and girls’ sexuality, both consensual and forced (Belknap, 2010a, p. 1069), which is highly troubling and ironic given their significant risk of rape by prison administrators, staff, and male inmates.

Women’s Prison Reform The First Wave of Reform The women’s prison reform movement occurred with inconsistent progress. The most active reform began in the 19th century, conducted by wealthy white women who often held conflicted views of women’s roles in society. On the one hand, they recognized that women offenders were often not deviant per se but rather victims in patriarchal economic and criminal legal systems. On the other hand, these same women reformers generally strove to “purify” and control these “fallen women” whom they viewed as a threat to society (Feinman, 1983). This first wave of women’s prison reformers’ goal was to help, rather than punish, offending women. The first penal reformer to focus exclusively on women was Elizabeth Fry, who established the Ladies Society for Promoting the Reformation of Female Prisoners in England. A Quaker, Fry developed reforms based on the Society of Friends when she began her work in 1816. Her approach was to convince the authorities of women’s unique needs (relative to men), specifically, for (1) useful labor, which included needlework and personal hygiene; and (2) religious instruction, requiring the hiring of “decidedly religious” women guards (R. P. Dobash et al., 1986, p. 52). Fry promoted the idea that these “fallen women” were not dangerous criminals; they simply needed a helping hand. Fry and her committee of “ladies” experimented on the women at London’s Newgate Gaol in 1818, with their program of resocialization, which was claimed a success by most (Windshuttle, 1981). Three of Fry’s significant requests were passed by Parliament in 1818: (1) segregating prisons by sex, (2) hiring women to oversee women prisoners, and (3) decreasing the hard labor required of women prisoners (Allison Morris, 1987). With the exception of the employees’ gender and the requirement for hard labor, however, men’s and women’s institutions were still similar in their harsh regimens. Some reformers continued to believe after Fry’s death in 1845 that there should be more differences between men’s and women’s prisons, given that men were usually incarcerated for serious crimes, whereas women were typically imprisoned for drunkenness, prostitution, and petty thefts. A resurgence in wealthy White British women’s concerns for incarcerated women reemerged when suffragists, detained for protesting for the right to vote between 1905 and 1914, provided the public with graphic descriptions of the deplorable conditions for the women already incarcerated for mostly petty offenses (Allison Morris, 1987). The reform movement for incarcerated women in the United States began somewhat later than in England, when a group of middle- and upper-class white women in New York City established the Magdalen Society in 1830 to reform prostitutes through religious instruction and motivational instruction. Similar to Elizabeth Fry’s efforts, their reform goal was to “remold” rather than punish women offenders by encouraging their “proper” gender roles and religious instruction (Feinman, 1981; Rafter, 1985). The deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldier “breadwinners” in the Civil War resulted in a new class of poor women who filled the jails as prostitutes, vagrants, and thieves during the 1860s (Freedman, 1974). After the Civil War, U.S. society was obsessed with controlling social disorder and identified restoring “women’s inherent purity” as one means of doing so. At this point, women offenders were considered deserving of harsher punishment than male criminals and thus experienced worse aspects of the prisons (Freedman, 1974). In the 1860s, women activists in the United States heightened public awareness of the significant increase in the rate of women’s imprisonment, the horrendous conditions for incarcerated women, and the sexual abuse of female prisoners by male guards. The reformers of this time started questioning the “fallen woman” label and pointed out that “fallen men” were aiding and abetting women and girls into prostitution. Moreover, once these women were confined in prison, it was not unusual for them to be lashed until they would have sex with male prison officials. As in England, the U.S. reform movement called for single-sex (gender segregated) prisons where women prisoners would be administered by women (Freedman, 1982).

“Freed” slaves, both men and women, after the Civil War encountered the prison system as a new means of enslavement: Laws were passed, and unethical enforcement practices were used to imprison African Americans so that they were forced into a new slave state (C. F. Collins, 1997). African American women prisoners “were put to work on the large, decaying plantation cotton fields or assigned to mill work sewing in a large central building” (C. F. Collins, 1997, p. 7). The U.S. women prison reformers of the 1870s and 1880s were Quakers, charity workers, and feminists from the northern states who viewed women prisoners as victims of the judges, wardens, and prison guards, who were all men (Freedman, 1982, p. 142). Rafter (1985, 1989) distinguishes between custodial institutions and reformatories. Custodial institutions are the traditional prisons designed for men, but these also held women in smaller structures attached to them. The goal was not rehabilitation but to “confine inmates at the lowest cost (a profit, if possible) until their sentences expired” (Rafter, 1989, p. 91). Women were routinely incarcerated in these men’s custodial institutions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, where they were isolated and neglected, had limited control over privacy from both male guards and male prisoners, and experienced high infant mortality rates among babies born to them while incarcerated (Rafter, 1989, p. 92). The custodial model, although eventually supplemented by women’s institutions of the reformatory type, did not disappear. Most of the states that established a separate reformatory for women continued to operate a custodial unit, in or nearby their central prison, for female offenders convicted of the most serious crimes and those transferred out of reformatories for misbehavior. Other states—particularly those in the South and West—never created a women’s reformatory. (Rafter, 1989, p. 92) In contrast to the custodial institutions, the reformatories were designed specifically to house women offenders, structured to support gender stereotypes, often entailing a cottage-style architecture. The first women’s reformatory in England was constructed in London in 1853, and the first women’s reformatory in the United States was opened in 1874 in Indiana. Shortly afterward, women’s reformatories were built in Massachusetts and New York (Freedman, 1974). In the United States, the reformatories largely incarcerated white women, while African American women and other women of Color were confined in the harsher custodial penitentiaries (C. F. Collins, 1997). Most women’s reformatories were not established in the United States until 1910, with half established in the 1920s, largely in response to women activists in the World War I era concerned with prostitution, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and promiscuity (L. M. Dodge, 2002). Even today, many women’s prisons (and some delinquent facilities) are called reformatories, although there is typically little in the way of rehabilitation or treatment. Reformatories are linked to indeterminate sentencing (see Chapter 6), thus resulting in significant net widening for women offenders. Before reformatories were established, women who committed adultery and prostitution were typically fined, but once reformatories came into existence, such women were sentenced to confinement. Indeed, indeterminate sentencing and reformatories led not only to women’s greater likelihood of incarceration for more offenses but also the likelihood of serving longer confinement sentences (L. M. Dodge, 2002; Rafter, 1989). Men who supervised the first sex-segregated and woman-managed reformatories were very hostile to their implementation. Yet, these reformatories were claimed a success, allowing a transition from housing a small number of young, White, and nonimmigrant women offenders to a larger and more diverse group of convicted women. Similar to some of the disparate laws based on gender and consistent with benevolent sexism, these institutions were designed to protect women and were based on the view of women as child-like: “They discouraged inmates from acting as independent adults—from competing with men in the industrial job market and participating in the activities (meeting men in dance halls, smoking cigarettes, traveling alone) of other working-class women” (Rafter, 1989, p. 93). Similar to Fry, the founders of the U.S. reformatories saw their goals as reform and refuge; their aim was to train the prisoners in the “important” female role of domesticity (Feinman,

1981, 1983; Freedman, 1982), encouraging and engraining “appropriate” gender role activities, such as cooking, sewing, and cleaning. To accommodate these goals, the reformatory cottages were usually designed with kitchens, living rooms, and even some nurseries for prisoners with infants. Despite their relatively gentle appearances, these institutions were run with “firmness, authority, and strict discipline” (Freedman, 1982, p. 145). Moreover, parole frequently involved being released to a “good” Christian home as a domestic servant (Feinman, 1983; Rafter, 1985). This indentured servant format was new in the United States but not in Europe and was supported by the middle class who could afford/exploit these inexpensive yet hardworking laborers (Janusz, 1991).

The Second Wave of Reform The Progressive era, the first two decades of the 1900s, brought in a new generation of reformers. The two characteristics distinguishing this era’s reformatories were the increased professionalism of the women prison administrators and the incorporation of a medical model (Rafter, 1985). For the first time, the reformatories were managed by educated and experienced women professionals, who put more distance between themselves and the prisoners than their predecessors had. Their approach was more feminist than that of the first wave of reformers. Although they continued to support a sex-segregated prison system, they questioned the treatment of women that encouraged them to stay in traditional roles, as these reformers had rejected such roles in their own lives (Freedman, 1982). The second wave of reformers was less likely than their foremothers to base their beliefs on religious and biological underpinnings. They were less concerned with the “moral uplifting” valued by the first wave of reformers, and they targeted what they viewed as the cause of women’s crime: low wages and limited opportunities for women in work and education (Freedman, 1982). The reformers during the 20th century were also invested in the suffrage movement, partly because they believed that the conditions for incarcerated women would improve with women’s right to vote. But the success of the women’s prisons soon resulted in their overcrowding, and legislators were unwilling to fund the needed expansion of vocational, recreational, and educational programs (Freedman, 1982). Moreover, overcrowding resulted in disciplinary problems (Rafter, 1985). Freedman (1981) identifies the irony of how, in 1915, just as the reformers started realizing that sex segregation meant reduced opportunities for incarcerated women (relative to incarcerated men), state officials were finally supporting the legitimacy of the sex-segregated facilities. After 1915, according to Freedman, the population of incarcerated women began to change, with a huge influx of incarcerated prostitutes and drug users and an increase in African American women prisoners due to the northern migration of southern African Americans. African American women and drug users were perceived as dangerous and in need of being controlled, and racially segregated housing was used in the cottages. In the 1920s, the training of the women prisoners in “homemaking” became popular again. The women prisoners’ “rights,” therefore, were changed to include less rigid clothing rules and more freedom to decorate their walls. The vocational training, however, continued to support gender stereotypes (Freedman, 1981). Men’s reformatories, though rare, were established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were limited to felons, while the misdemeanants were housed in jails and state institutions (Rafter, 1989). In addition to the indeterminate sentencing working toward a huge disadvantage for women by lengthening their sentences, it is also important to remember the significant mingling of sin, sex, and crime for women/girls that men/boys did not face. Many of the women sent to reformatories were women convicted of minor “sex offenses,” such as adultery, prostitution, lewdness, and pregnancy out of wedlock—offenses for which men were not prosecuted, much less convicted (M. J. Bowman, 1939; Lekkerkerker, 1931; Rafter, 1989; B. B. Rosenbaum, 1938). In 1923, half of the women in U.S. prisons were convicted of sex offenses (prostitution, fornication, and adultery) (Lekkerkerker, 1931). From 1931 to 1933 in Massachusetts, half of the women were in for such sex offenses (adultery, being “lewd” and “wanton,” and prostitution) and another 12% were incarcerated for being idle and disorderly (M. J. Bowman, 1939). Indeed, until

1950, women in Massachusetts convicted of having sex outside of marriage were charged with fornication and sentenced to prison (Janusz, 1991).

Sex-Segregated Custodial Prisons Rafter (1989) reported that the custodial and reformatory models of women’s incarceration merged about 1930, “pooling their respective disadvantages to create the women’s prison system as we know it today” (p. 93). Three decades after Rafter’s report, very little has changed in women’s incarceration (other than the rates). Although sex segregation and the gender stratification of male and female institutional regimes became standard throughout the United States (Freedman, 1982), after the Great Depression, many custodial institutions were closed, and most women were imprisoned in the reformatories, which lost many of the reformatory ideals and took on more of the custodial regimes (Chesney-Lind, 2003; Rafter, 1985). “The majority of prisons built between 1930 and 1966 were built with the reformatory model as the goal for young white women, while blacks were confined to arduous physical farm camps” (C. F. Collins, 1997). The 1940s and 1950s have been characterized as a time in which the reformatories switched the goal from turning women prisoners into good housemaids to making them good housewives (Carlen, 1983; Allison Morris, 1987; Windshuttle, 1981). Regardless, valuing women as domestic servants, in their own or others’ homes, was commonplace in the women’s penal reform movement, and racist views of women of Color further impacted their difficulty in serving time. After this period, the reform movement for incarcerated women temporarily died down, and there was little change in women’s imprisonment in the middle of the 20th century (C. F. Collins, 1997; Heidensohn, 1985).

Racist Segregation and Treatment in Institutions for Girls and Women Unsurprisingly, racism also played a significant role in the establishment of juvenile institutions. V. D. Young (1994) offers a comprehensive historical accounting of this, beginning with the movement for taking juveniles out of adult facilities in the southern United States. This began prior to the Civil War, and although it was a serious demand, it did not occur for another three decades, at the end of the 1890s. V. D. Young (1994) argues that the development of institutions for youths was predicated on the need to control different segments of the population in the South, tracing how the development of incarceration varied among youths depending on their sex and race. More specifically, white boys were separated from white men in adult prisons, while African American boys prior to the Civil War were controlled by slavery and the adult penal system. After abolition, African American boys remained in the adult prison system and were processed through the convict lease system (V. D. Young, 1994). Juvenile institutions for African American boys were introduced only to maintain social control, once the mechanisms of the convict lease system failed, and the “new” method of maintaining social control was by using these youths as needed exploited laborers. The institutions designed for White delinquent girls were motivated by the desire to save these girls from sexual immorality by providing them with instruction in “women’s” work. Special institutions for African American delinquent girls were not implemented until it became practically or fiscally prohibitive to remand them to adult institutions or “ship” them out of state (V. D. Young, 1994). But the impact of racism during slavery and Reconstruction (the post–Civil War era) was obviously not limited to juveniles. For example, P. C. Johnson (2003) discusses the “Black Codes” that replaced the “Slave Codes” during Reconstruction: “Although the Reconstruction era reforms promised independence and self-determination for freed slaves, southern states responded by enacting laws that reinscribed the perceived racial inferiority and inherently criminal status of people of African descent” (p. 23). Given that African Americans were highly criminalized under Black Codes, they were also those most impacted by the convict lease system (P. C. Johnson, 2003). There was a racialized pattern where white women were more likely to be “channeled out of prisons” because their offending was more likely to be seen as the result of being “victims of circumstance,” while African American women offenders were seen as inherently immoral with “uncontrolled lust” and thus were more likely to

be sentenced to jail, prison, and hard labor (P. C. Johnson, 2003, p. 32). A. M. Butler’s (1997) research on women in men’s prisons in the western United States from 1865 to 1915 and L. M. Dodge’s (2002) research on women in Illinois prisons from 1835 to 2000 describe the significant impact of race and immigrant status among the imprisoned women. For example, in addition to racial segregation in the housing of the women, African American women were more likely than white women to be required to do heavy labor (A. M. Butler, 1997).

Women’s Prisons Since the 1960s Three occurrences in the 1960s and 1970s renewed interest in women’s penal reform:(1) the rise of modern feminism and reappraisal of women’s roles in society as deviants and as victims; (2) concern that women’s crime rates were growing faster than men’s; and (3) in England, a 1968 policy that claimed women offenders should be treated uniquely given their special physical and psychological problems (Heidensohn, 1985). With the reemergence of feminism in the 1970s, U.S. reformers began to question the value of sex-segregated prisons. Although these segregated facilities had significantly decreased the abuse (especially sexual abuse) of women prisoners, they had also promoted damaging gender stereotypes and restricted incarcerated women’s opportunities (Freedman, 1982). Structures built specifically to be used as women’s reformatories in the United States usually have a cottage-style design and are often compared to college campuses. In addition to their “tamer” architectural appearance, these women’s prisons are less likely to have gun towers, armed guards, high concrete walls, and other intimidating, prison-like features. However, since the 1990s, high fences with rolls of razor-barbed wire have surrounded these “campuses,” and the recently built prisons are more consistent with custodial than cottage-style women’s prisons. The lack of adequate women’s prisons concerned feminists in the 1970s because women prisoners were often sent out of state if there were no institutions to house them in their own state (Chesney-Lind, 1991, 2003; Rafter, 1989). Unprepared for the explosion in women sentenced to incarceration in the 1980s in both the United States and England, in addition to more women’s prisons being built, convicted women were held in “holding tanks,” including former men’s and juveniles’ facilities, hospitals, and even motels (Chesney-Lind, 1991, 2003). In fact, two out of three facilities used as women’s prisons in 1990 were not designed to house women (American Correctional Association, 1990). Whether built or created to hold convicted women, women’s prisons appeared at exponential rates. Only two or three women’s prisons were built or created per decade between 1930 and 1950, but there were an additional seven built in the 1960s, seventeen in the 1970s, and thirty-four in the 1980s (ChesneyLind, 1991). Many feminists began asking why women’s prisons were being expanded when they appeared to harm more than help the women they so severely punish (Chesney-Lind, 1991, 2003; Hannah-Moffat, 1994; Rafter, 1989).

RATES OF INCARCERATION Gender Comparisons in Incarceration Rates Over Time The term incarceration is used because most youths are not sentenced to prisons but rather to detention or residential placements, which, like reformatories, sound less harsh than prison. Some of them are (less harsh), but most still suffer from inadequate funding, resources, and staff and archaic architecture and staff training. From 1920 to 1972, the rate of adults (combining women and men) incarcerated in the United States remained stable, about 110 per 100,000 people in the population (J. Travis, 2006). Between the 1970s and 2009, this incarceration rate increased every year,1 resulting in the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world, surpassing Russia, China, Cuba, Rwanda, and South Africa during apartheid (M. A. Simons, 2010; Spelman, 2009). This unprecedented increase has been referred to as the “incarceration boom,” “hyperincarceration,” the “prison epidemic,” and most commonly, “mass incarceration” (M. A. Simons, 2010; Spelman, 2009; Travis, 2006). As noted in Chapter 4, net-widening policies and legal changes led to decreasing the

official gender gap in offending in a manner that did not reflect actual changes in offending, largely due to the war on drugs impacting women more than men, and women of Color more than white women (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; ChesneyLind, 2003; Harmon & O’Brien, 2011; Immarigeon & Chesney-Lind, 1992; M. S. Kelley, 2003; Moon, Thompson, & Bennett, 1993; Allison Morris, 1987; J. M. Pollock, 1998, 2002; Sokoloff, 2005) and the impact of domestic violence and assault policies that disproportionately criminalized women and girl, including when acting in selfdefense resistance (Dichter, 2013; Durfee, 2012; M. Hamilton & Worthen, 2011; Harmon & O’Brien, 2011; Javdani et al., 2011; A. A. Robertson et al., 2011; Romain & Freiburger, 2016; J. Schwartz & Rookey, 2008; J. Schwartz et al., 2009). Although for decades feminist scholars and federal reports and data documented that the “prison epidemic” was gendered (e.g., Acoca, 1998a; Acoca & Austin, 1996; G. J. Church & Browning, 1990; P. M. Harrison & Beck, 2005; Kline, 1993; Mumola & Beck, 1997; D. E. Roberts, 2012; Sokoloff, 2005) and with powerful race and class intersections (Crenshaw, 2012; M. Lynch, 2012; Richie, 2012; D. E. Roberts, 2012; Sokoloff, 2005), many treatises of mass incarceration fail to mention gender or women even once (e.g., P. J. Cook, 2009, p. 20; Gottschalk, 2009; M. P. Murray, 2009; Raphael, 2009; M. A. Simons, 2010; Spelman, 2009). In 2017, relative to females, males were incarcerated in prisons 6.2 times more and in jails 5.7 times more. Although the incarceration rate per 100,000 U.S. residents in state and federal prisons decreased overall by 12.9% between 2007 and 2017, men’s has decreased by 13.2% and women’s by 8.0% (Bronson & Carson, 2019, p. 9). However, while men’s incarceration in jail per 100,000 residents decreased by 12.1% between 2005 and 2007, women’s increased by 9.5%.2 “Only 4% of the world’s female population lives in the U.S., but the U.S. accounts for over 30% of the world’s incarcerated women” (Kajstura, 2018). 1

Women’s incarceration in state and federal prisons first started declining in 2009, whether measured by the actual number of women incarcerated or the rate of women incarcerated per 100,000 of U.S. women residents 18 and older. The corresponding data on men indicate that their rate per 100,000 U.S. residents also started decreasing in 2009, but the actual number incarcerated did not occur till 2010 (Tables 1 and 5 in Bronson & Carson, 2019, pp. 3 & 9). 2

These percentages were calculated from Table 2 in Jail Inmates in 2017 (Zeng, 2019, p. 4).

Description

Figure 7.1 ● U.S. Prisoners Under State and Federal Jurisdiction per 100,000 U.S. Residents by Gender, 1975– 2017

Sources: Data from Bronson and Carson (2019, p. 9, Table 5); Snell (1995, p. 9, Table 1.7); and Minor-Harper (1986, p. 8, Table 1).

Examining the U.S. rates over time, Figures 7.1 and 7.2 were constructed for this book, using the most available data from 1960 to 2017.3 For this period, the fewest number of women were incarcerated in 1970 (N = 5,635), and among men, the fewest were incarcerated in 1968 (N = 182,102). The largest number of women (N = 114,612) were incarcerated in 2008, and the largest number of men (N = 1,502,002) were incarcerated in 2009. From 1960 to 2017, women’s representation among imprisoned adults steadily increased from 2.9% to 3.8%, and from 1970 to 2017 women’s representation steadily increased with the lowest at 2.9% in 1970 to highest, 7.5%, for the most recent year for which data are available, 2017. Women’s peak in incarceration in numbers was 114,612 in 2008, and men’s peak was in 2009 at 1,502,002. Taking the lowest incarceration rate for women and men combined (N = 187.914), which was in 1968, to the highest combined gender number (N = 1,615,487) in 2009, in these four decades (1968–2009), men’s rate increased by 8.2 times, whereas women’s rates increased by 19.5 times. If we look at 1968 to 2017 (about five decades), men’s rate increased by 7.6 times, whereas women’s rates increased by 19.2 times. 3

The annual rates in the figures constructed for this chapter differ for some years than some previous federal data (and reports on federal data) because the numbers for some years have been revised over time. The figures in this book reflect the data with the most accurate revisions available at the time of this writing (November 17, 2019) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics sources cited in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. All of the findings reported in this paragraph are from these same data sources, and analyzed by the author, although not all of the numbers appear in Figures 7.1 and 7.2.

Description

Figure 7.2 ● Yearly Percent Changes in Number of Individuals Incarcerated in U.S. State and Federal Prisons by Gender, 1960–2017 Sources: Data from Bronson and Carson (2019, p. 9, Table 5); Snell (1995, p. 9, Table 1.7); and Minor-Harper (1986, p. 8, Table 1).

Given that women have constituted 2.9% to 7.5% of the adult prison population from 1960 to 2017, Figure 7.1 uses logged scales to more clearly view the changes over time. Eyeballing Figure 7.1, the rates of women’s and men’s incarceration appear

almost identical, although with careful examination one can see the upward slope is slightly steeper for women. Figure 7.2 is far more telling: The larger rates in women’s increased incarceration (except for 2007–2012) compared to the notably high rates of men’s incarceration over time is very evident in Figure 7.2. Regarding state incarceration, a recent report identified the “imprisonment rate for females was highest in Oklahoma (157 per 100,000 female state residents), followed by Kentucky (133 per 100,000), South Dakota (124 per 100,000), and Idaho (114 per 100,000)” (Bronson & Carson, 2019, p. 10).

Gender Comparisons in Incarceration Offenses Women’s disproportionate increase in incarceration relative to men is particularly problematic given that women’s overall criminality does not appear to have increased (as documented in Chapter 4). Table 7.1 includes national U.S. data on inmates in state prisons, including a gender comparison of offenses, and the ratio of offenses by women to those of men. Similar to the arrest data presented in Chapter 4, these data indicate that men are far more criminal, and particularly more violent, than women (however, the state prison offenses did not include or specify incarceration for prostitution/sex work). At any rate, for every offense in Table 7.1, at least 2.9 times as many men as women were incarcerated in the state prisons. This is most extreme for rape and sexual assault, for which men are 70.6 times more likely to be incarcerated in a state prison. The next largest gender gap is men are 33 times more likely to have committed weapons crimes. Among those incarcerated in state prisons, men are 15 to 21 times as likely as women to be incarcerated for violent offenses (combined), murder, robbery, (physical) assault, burglary, and public-order offenses (see Table 7.1). Men are 5 to 14 times more likely than women to be in state prisons for manslaughter, other violent offenses (than the index violent crimes), property offenses (combined), drug offenses, motor vehicle theft, DUI, and non-index property crimes. The smallest gender gaps were still dominated by men: Men were 2.9 times as likely as women to be incarcerated as fraud offenders and 4.5 times as likely to be incarcerated for larceny offenses (see Table 7.1). McCorkel (2013) aptly summarizes that the over 400% increase in U.S. women’s state and federal incarceration from the start of the war on drugs in the mid-1980s to the end of the 20th century indicates the historical reversal of criminal legal system (CLS) priorities from providing “mercy” for those “persons for whom mercy was once reserved—first-time and nonviolent offenders, juveniles, and women,” to responses making them “the fastest growing segment of the prison population” (p. 9). Table 7.1 ● A Gender Representation of Adult State Incarceration by Most Serious Offenses in 2017a

Offense

Of All Women Prisoners, % N of Incarcerated Prisoners for Each Offense

Of All Men Prisoners, % Incarcerated for Each Offense

Ratio of Men to Women Among All Prisoners for Each Offense

Violent

710,800

37.9

56.9

19.1:1

Murderb

182,400

12.1

14.4

15.1:1

Manslaughter 17,300

2.5

1.3

6.5:1

Rape/sexual assault

2.5

13.7

70.6:1

164,700

Offense

Of All Women Prisoners, % N of Prisoners Incarcerated for Each Offense

Of All Men Prisoners, % Incarcerated for Each Offense

Ratio of Men to Women Among All Prisoners for Each Offense

Robbery

168,800

8.1

13.6

21.2:1

Assault

135,400

8.9

10.7

15.3:1

Other violent

42,200

3.9

3.3

10.7:1

Property

226,400

26.7

17.0

8.1:1

Burglary

121,200

7.2

9.6

17.1:1

Larceny

44,200

8.6

3.0

4.5:1

Motor vehicle 9,700 theft

0.9

0.7

11.1:1

Fraud

26,000

7.2

1.6

2.9:1

Other property

25,300

3.0

1.9

8.0:1

Drugc

190,300

25.1

14.1

7.1:1

Drug possession

45,400

7.4

3.2

5.6:1

Drug trafficking

144,900

17.8

10.8

7.7:1

Publicorderd

153,000

10.3

12.1

14.9:1

Weapons

54,300

1.7

4.4

32.9:1

DUI

24,600

2.7

1.9

8.8:1

Offense

Of All Women Prisoners, % N of Prisoners Incarcerated for Each Offense

Of All Men Prisoners, % Incarcerated for Each Offense

Ratio of Men to Women Among All Prisoners for Each Offense

Other publicorder

74,100

5.8

12.5:1

5.9

a

The data for this table are directly calculated from Table 13 in Carson and Bronson (2019) and include only data for which the gender of the prisoner was known. b Includes nonnegligent manslaughter. c Includes trafficking, possession, and other drug offenses. d Includes weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses.

Notably, women typically constitute a higher percentage of U.S. jail than prison inmates, and most jail inmates have not yet been convicted of their crimes (Turney & Wakefield, 2019; Zeng, 2019). From 1995 to 2004 women’s jail incarceration grew 7.0% annually, while the rate for men in jail was 4.2% annually (Harrison & Beck, 2005). From 2005 to 2017 the male jail population decreased by 3% while the female jail population increased by 20% (Zeng, 2019, p. 4). Women and girls first reached (and exceeded) 13.0% of jail inmates in 2012 (Zeng, 2019, p. 6). Thus, although the U.S. adult prison population has been decreasing since 2011, the jail population has decreased far less (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2016; Zeng, 2019), and this is primarily due to decreases in the number of men and boys in jail, while the number of women and girls in jail has increased (Zeng, 2019). A similar pattern was found among inmates detained in U.S. “Indian Country jails” (ICJs) from 2000 to 2016, for which the number of jail inmates increased by 43%, with the biggest increases for (adult) women, whose rates almost doubled (increased by 94%) (Minton, 2017). Women’s detention increased from 16% (N = 280) to 24% (N = 620) of the inmates in ICJs over this time (2000–2016), while ICJ detainment of girls and boys decreased from 280 to 7 youths, with greater decreases among boys (Minton, 2017).

The Significance yet Invisibility in U.S. Incarceration Data on the Intersections of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Class The most obvious characteristic distinguishing women and girls who have been incarcerated from those who have not is race/ethnicity (Alleyne, 2006; BinkleyJackson, Carter, & Rolison, 1993; D. R. Brewster, 2003; Chauhan et al., 2009; Chauhan, Reppucci et al., 2010; Crenshaw, 2012; McCorkel, 2013; Rafter, 1985; Richie, 1996, 2012; D. E. Roberts, 2012; L. Ross, 1998; Sarri, 1987; Sharp, 2003; Sokoloff, 2005). Incarceration institutions, regardless of gender, have a long history of reflecting the CLS’s racism (e.g., Alexander, 2010; Stevenson, 2015; Van Cleve, 2016). Even prior to 1865, African American women were disproportionately incarcerated, and after the Civil War the rate of imprisoned African American women swelled (A. M. Butler, 1997; C. F. Collins, 1997; Rafter, 1985). In the 1980s and 1990s some researchers in the United States and Canada reported that women of Color are even more overrepresented in women’s than in men’s prisons (Binkley-Jackson et al., 1993; Goetting & Howsen, 1983; H. Johnson & Rodgers, 1993; Rafter, 1985). The most recent statistics from the United States, however, suggest that the overrepresentation of people of Color in prisons is even more extreme in men’s than in women’s prisons, and to a lesser extent, the same pattern is found in youth facilities (see Figure 7.3). Feminist prison scholar McCorkel (2013) powerfully documents how the U.S. government’s war on drugs, “get tough” policies, and prison privatization coalesced to impact the incarceration of African American women in particular.

A little-addressed problem in U.S. prisons is the representation of American Indian and/or Alaskan Natives. Most recent government publications group Alaskan Natives with American Indians, but this terminology gets a bit confusing. L. Ross (1998) points out that although American Indians constituted 6% of Montana’s population in 1995, 17% of the men’s prison population and 25% of the women’s prison population in Montana were classified as American Indian. Unfortunately, and tellingly, current data on Native American representation in U.S. prisons is difficult to find. In the 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, Prisoners in 2017, “Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders; American Indians and Alaska Natives; and persons of two or more races” are combined and measured as “other,” making racial/ethnic distinctions among these racial/ethnic groups impossible (Bronson & Carson, 2019, p. 17).4 4 It is assumed that “Asians” includes “Asian Americans,” an annoying pattern in the U.S. Justice Department’s reporting of U.S. racial/ethnic categories. Although collecting data on class is more difficult than gathering data on race, a government report indicated that incarcerated women are significantly more economically disadvantaged than incarcerated men (a largely poor group) (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). More specifically, prior to the arrest for the offense that led them to a U.S. state prison, (1) 40% of women and 60% of men were employed full-time, (2) 37% of women and 28% of men had incomes of less than $600 per month, and (3) almost 30% of women and less than 8% of men were receiving welfare. A more recent study identifies how poor, Black and Brown (African American and Latinx) women disproportionately face exploitation or “predation” by the jail bail industry, given that racial profiling impacts African American and Latinx men and boys the most, and their mothers, grandmothers, wives, girlfriends and so on, are central to the bail industry’s assumptions about gendered care and emotional labor (Page, Piehowski, & Soss, 2019).

Description

Figure 7.3 ● The U.S. 2017 Gender × Race Representation of Incarcerated Adults and Youthsa THE WOMEN’S PRISON REGIME U.S. women’s prisons changed relatively little from the beginning of the 20th century (Feinman, 1981; Sarri, 1987) until the 1990s. Women’s prisons have always been (and often still are) smaller, fewer in number, and different than men’s prisons, but

since the 1980s and especially early 1990s, addition of women’s units to men’s prisons and solely women’s prisons have grown larger in structure and been built at unprecedented rates (Chesney-Lind, 1991, 2003; Dewey, Zare, Connolly, Epler, & Bratton,2019; Figueira-McDonough & Sarri, 1987; Immarigeon, 1987; Immarigeon & Chesney-Lind, 1992; McCorkel, 2013; J. M. Pollock, 2002). Although there has been a long-standing assumption that incarcerated women can simply “fit into” incarcerated men’s building structures and programs (Chesney-Lind, 1991, 2003; Hannah-Moffat, 1994), with the boom in women’s incarceration, governmental establishments could no longer consider them “correctional afterthoughts” (Chesney-Lind, 2003, p. 5). The regime of women’s prisons has been described as intending to “discipline, infantilize, feminize, medicalize, and domesticize” (Carlen & Tchaikovsky, 1985, p. 182), and it has been effective in reinforcing these gender stereotypes (e.g., women are “crazy,” “childlike,” and need to learn how to portray correct gender expressions, including being submissive) (Carlen, 1983; Dewey et al., 2019; J. G. Fox, 1975; Girshick, 1999; Leonard, 1983; McClellan, 1994; Moyer, 1984). The benevolent sexism of treating incarcerated women as children might seem kinder, but it is typically offensive and marginalizing. For example, one legal case brought by women prisoners in the 1980s in Kentucky challenged why they had to have their lights turned out in their cells earlier than men incarcerated in that state (Leonard, 1983). A more recent example is McCorkel’s (2013, p. 35) extensive powerful ethnography, which found incarcerated women called the female deputy warden “Mom” and the male warden “Dad,” a practice that is unimaginable in a men’s prison. Notably, a male officer participating in McCorkel’s study acknowledged the disproportionate trauma among female (compared with male) prisoners when he viewed the male inmates as “willful” and the female inmates as “‘fucked up’ girls” (p. 37). McCorkel also identified the rehabilitative ideal disproportionately practiced by prison staff with incarcerated women (compared to incarcerated men) highly paternalistic and troubling, whereby the incarcerated women learned they had to present their “rights” as “needs” in a way that incarcerated men do not have to do (p. 41). Hostile sexism is evident in greater discipline given to women and girls than to men and boys for the same carceral rule infractions (Belknap et al., 1997; McClellan, 1994), and most certainly in the highly disproportionate sexual abuse of prisoners by staff as addressed later in this chapter. Recall the discussion of structural sexism in the first paragraph of this chapter. Indeed, the same “structural disadvantages” such as the “intersecting inequalities related to class, race, and gender positions that paved their pathways to prison” impact their vulnerabilities and oppression in prison (Owen, Wells, & Pollock, 2017, p. 91). Structural sexism is clearly seen in incarceration whereby because women and girls constitute far fewer of the incarcerated offenders, their carceral institutions are fewer and thus tend to be farther away from “home” and visitors, have been historically and to a significant extent still are provided fewer and less diversity in resources, programming, and so on, and are far more likely to combine security levels (i.e., minimum, medium, maximum). The latter usually results in minimum- and medium-security women prisoners’ far stricter institutional controls than similarly classified male prisoners. In Colorado, most incarcerated men are eager to be transferred to the Colorado Correctional Facility, which was originally built for Colorado National Guard training and incarcerates about 150 Level 1 (the lowest security level) prisoners who are mostly employed off-site during the weekdays. There is no equivalent prison for women in the state. But the benevolent and hostile sexism discussed earlier also indicate the manners in which structured sexism results in acute denial of incarcerated women’s rights. One of the most powerful findings of McCorkel’s (2013) ethnography is her identification of habilitation as a response to female but not male prisoners: “Habilitation is a set of social technologies that mobilize surveillance, confrontation, humiliation, and discipline for the purposes of ‘breaking down’ a self that is thought to be diseased” (p. 3). Thus, these women, whose lives are usually challenged or broken by traumas (including violent victimizations), injustices, and poverty, are reduced to women who have simply made “bad choices” and, disturbingly, need to be “broken down” (McCorkel, 2013, p. 3). Ironically, although research, particularly feminist research, on incarcerated women and girls has exploded over the past few decades, some gender disparities found in

previous research are not mentioned in more recent research, and it is not clear whether these are no longer gender disparities, which is certainly ideal. First, research in the 1980s documented the vaginal searches for contraband that was typically conducted by security staff, not medical staff (Holt, 1982; Mann, 1984; McHugh, 1980), at the same time that “the preventive Pap tests for cervical cancer” were not given (Mann, 1984, p. 213). Second, 1980s research documented incarcerated women’s disparity (relative to incarcerated men) in access to law libraries, jailhouse lawyers, and, consequently, the courts (Alpert, 1982; Carlen, 1983; Haft, 1980; Wheeler, Trammell, Thomas, & Findlay, 1989). A 1990 report claimed that only about half of U.S. women’s prisons have law libraries available for the inmates (American Correctional Association, 1990). Incarcerated women’s often limited access to and sometimes outright denial of menstruation products and toilet paper, often determined by all women and girls receiving the same number of pads per time period (and the same amount of toilet paper designated for incarcerated men even though men typically need less toilet paper than women) (Compton-Wallace, 2003; M. Goodman, Dawson, & Burlingame, 2016; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; J. M. Pollock, 2002) has been referred to as “degradation ceremonies” (Maeve, 1999). These practices, and in some cases, policies, place incarcerated women at the mercy of staff for the most basic needs. One report found some jail staff used access to menstruation products to coerce incarcerated women (M. Goodman et al., 2016). Semelbauer v. Muskegon County was brought by the Michigan ACLU on behalf of women incarcerated in the Muskegon County Jail in Michigan in 2014, to which the women plaintiffs were conceded some changes in practices and money in a settlement in 2017. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that, in addition to being exposed to unsafe physical conditions, male guards at the prison are permitted to watch female inmates while they change clothes, shower, and use the bathroom. The plaintiff also alleged they were referred to by slurs and often denied clean underwear and basic sanitary items such as toilet paper and feminine hygiene products. (Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, 2020). Dewey and her colleagues’ (2019) excellent ethnography of women incarcerated in Wyoming, Outlaw Women, although focused on a rural state, provides descriptions of day-to-day life and structure that is similar to many U.S. women’s prisons. Dewey et al. note that the women’s “security classifications and other staff assessments … determine their place or residence [within the prison], job, and participation in programming” (p. 21). They stress the “highly structured context” with “limited decision-making opportunities” in prison where the goal for the general population is to “keep busy with a variety of social activities, individual hobbies, classes, and jobs for which they receive a small amount of money that they can spend at the commissary, which sells snacks, personal hygiene products and a limited selection of entertainment items, including a single type of television” (p. 21).

Parenthood: A Gender Difference Among Prisoners Loss of a parent is one of the most traumatic childhood events, and a parent’s incarceration, particularly if the child witnesses the arrest and fails to understand what happened, can be extremely painful and confusing. About 2 million children (2.3% of people under age 18) in the United States have an incarcerated parent, and in most cases, they have no or extremely limited contact (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Between 1991 and 2007 (the most recent data), the number of children with an incarcerated mother (131%) outpaced children with an incarcerated father (80%) by 1.6 times, and this disproportionately impacted African American and Latinx children, who were 7.5 and 2.5 times, respectively, more likely than White youth, to have an incarcerated parent (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Regardless of gender, most incarcerated parents have, on average, two minor (under age 18) children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010; Schafer & Dellinger, 2000; Shlafer, Duwe, & Hindt, 2019), but compared with incarcerated men, incarcerated women are

more likely to be parents (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Compared with both incarcerated women who are not mothers and incarcerated fathers, incarcerated mothers are less likely to be imprisoned for violent crimes and more likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010; Loper, 2006). Indeed, some incarcerated mothers’ property offenses, sex work, and drug-selling that land them in prison result from trying to pay for groceries, housing, and other necessities, and some incarcerated women become substance abusers after losing custody of their children (Moe & Ferraro, 2007). Overall, incarcerated mothers’ sentences tend to be significantly shorter than incarcerated fathers’ because they commit less serious crimes (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Societal and structural sexism separately and together impact parents in prison and their children. Societal sexism operates by distinguishing mothers’ versus fathers’ responsibilities in caring for their children (the onus is on mothers), and general sexism operates in employment, housing, education, and access to resources. An example of societal sexism is the idea that mothers are worse parents (and people) than fathers for committing crimes that result in their incarceration. Despite the huge number of children severely affected by their mothers’ incarceration, these women are often viewed as “throwaway moms” (S. Allen, Flaherty, & Ely, 2010, p. 160), and whether or not they are incarcerated, “throughout history, Black women have fallen outside the realm of what constitutes a good mother” (M. B. Mitchell & Davis, 2019, p. 421). Qualitative studies on incarcerated mothers, in particular, provide the best sense of the gravity of their feelings as mothers. Most want very much to be good mothers, and many are devoted mothers, but they are having to mother in the context of such daunting lives, even before incarceration, that way too often include trauma histories, poverty, single parenthood, few resources, and addiction (S. Allen et al., 2010; Cooper-Sadlo, Mancini, Meyer, & Chou, 2019; Gilham, 2012; M. B. Mitchell & Davis, 2019). They are “powerless to protect their children from sharing their same fate, powerless against the child welfare system, powerless against their addictions, and powerless against the society from which they have become so disenfranchised,” and incarceration typically magnifies all of these forms of powerlessness (S. Allen et al., 2010, p. 165). They rarely have the resources, nor are they always able to “recognize the negative consequences of their actions on their children and their relationship with their children until beginning intensive treatment” (Gilham, 2012, p. 89), which is why prisons need to provide far better and more frequent and accessible treatment. Moreover, even upon release mothers may opt to have others care for their children, especially if they are homeless and cannot “protect their children from multiple dangers on the streets and in shelters” (M. B. Mitchell & Davis, 2019, p. 431) The section of this chapter on women’s prison subcultures identifies the very real “sacredness” of discussing their children; a participant in one incarcerated mother study stated: “‘Kids are a touchy subject for all of us in here’’ (S. Allen et al., 2010, p. 165). In addition to incarcerated mothers reporting more stress about their children than incarcerated fathers do, they also report more guilt, shame, and concern about their children’s caretakers on the outside (S. Allen et al., 2010; Baunach, 1992; Celinska & Siegel, 2010; M. Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Foster, 2011; Moe & Ferraro, 2007; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001; Z. K. Snyder, 2009). One likely reason this is so significant is that many children of incarcerated mothers are “cared for” by the same individuals that abused and or neglected these children’s mothers, most typically the children’s maternal grandparents (Maeve, 1998; Sharp & MarcusMendoza, 2001). As expected, incarcerated mothers with longer sentences and those mothers unhappy about the custody arrangements for their dependent children report higher levels of strain while imprisoned (Berry & Eigenberg, 2003). In addition to the sexist views and practices in society, structural sexism impacts incarcerated parents’ abilities to parent. Moreover, both structural and societal impacts may be in play. One study found that there were many means seemingly available for incarcerated mothers to communicate with their children, “including cards and letters, telephone calls, audio- and videotapes, messages communicated through friends and family members, and regular visitation in the standard visitors’ room,” yet the women did not have equal access to these (relative to incarcerated fathers) because they could not afford them (e.g., stamps, cards, tapes), and their

children’s caretakers could not afford the collect calls or drives to the prison or were unwilling to pay or drive (Z. K. Snyder, 2009, p. 46).

Impacts on the Children of Incarcerated Mothers As expected, having an incarcerated father is usually traumatic, is stigmatizing, and lowers financial and emotional stability. However, research over the past four decades consistently demonstrates that, overall, children fare much worse when their mothers than when their fathers are incarcerated because the mothers are more likely to be single parents and the primary emotional and financial providers for their children (e.g., Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Boudin, 2011; Celinska & Siegel, 2010; A. Farrell, 1998; Greenberg, 2007; Henriques, 1996; Owen, 1998; J. M. Pollock, 2002; Sharp, 1999; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001). Children are often stigmatized and shamed for their parents’ incarceration, but given that offending is more acceptable and normalized for men than women, it is perhaps particularly stigmatizing and shaming to have an incarcerated mother (Greenberg, 2007). Understandably, due to the shame and stigma, some children are reluctant to tell people where their mother is, and this can be particularly silencing for a child who has no one to talk to who might sympathize (Greenberg, 2007; Raeder, 2012; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). Understandably, caretakers, perhaps particularly if they are older/grandparents (which is the case regarding most incarcerated mothers), find the child care financially, emotionally, and/or physically exhausting (e.g., Enos, 2001), and there is no guarantee that the initial placement of a child will last the duration of the mother’s incarceration (Johnston, 1995; McCarthy, 1980; Poehlmann, 2005; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). As expected, the more caregivers children bounce between during their mothers’ incarcerations, the more likely they are moved to different neighborhoods and schools, the more new caretaker adaptations they have to navigate, the more new friends they have to make and the more explanations about their mother, and thus the more disruption and greater feelings of insecurity (e.g., Poehlmann, 2005; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001; Stanton, 1980). Both the likely farther distance between incarcerated mothers than incarcerated fathers and their children and the greater likelihood that the remaining caretaker is not a parent when mothers are incarcerated make it more difficult for children of incarcerated mothers to visit them. In one study of children with incarcerated parents, a child said, “I might want to go see my mom, but my aunt doesn’t have time to drive—it’s far away” (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010, p. 405). Finally, children of incarcerated mothers (7%– 11%) are 5 or 6 times more likely than children of incarcerated fathers (1%–2%) to be in foster care or some similar agency or institution (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010; Schafer & Dellinger, 2000). Because incarcerated mothers are far more likely than incarcerated fathers to be active caretakers and financial providers, most incarcerated children’s lives are both emotionally and structurally disrupted by their mothers’ (compared with their fathers’) incarcerations. Although research consistently finds children of incarcerated parents are at greater risk of poor school performance and dropping out of school (Hagan & Foster, 2012; Raeder, 2012; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010), mothers’ incarceration more negatively affects educational outcomes than does fathers’ incarceration (Hagan & Foster, 2012). Mothers’ incarceration is also related to increasing their children’s alcohol and drug problems (Sharp & MarcusMendoza, 2001; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010); poverty, homelessness, and unemployment (Raeder, 2012); and arrest and incarceration in delinquency institutions and adult prisons (American Correctional Association, 1990; Arditti, 2012; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007; Luke, 2002; Raeder, 2012; Sharp, 1999; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001). An extensive national study found “maternal incarceration has a stronger effect than paternal incarceration” for adult daughters’ and sons’ likelihoods of being incarcerated (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016, p. 1047)

Losing Custody/Children Historically and currently, many carceral institutions and child welfare laws have been used to terminate, directly and indirectly, the maternal rights of incarcerated women

and girls, including forced adoption of their children (Allard, 2007; Baunach, 1992; Bloom, 1993; Haft, 1980; Haley, 1980; Knight, 1993; Luke, 2002; Mann, 1984; J. M. Pollock, 2002; Raeder, 2003; R. R. Ross & Fabiano, 1986), even children they give birth to while incarcerated (Mann, 1984). The institutionalized sexism of fewer and farther from home prisons for women than men is further troubling when considering the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) passed in 1997. ASFA mandates a shorter timeline in decisions to remove children from foster care and to place them for adoption (Allard, 2007; Hagan & Coleman, 2001; Raeder, 2003). In essence, the ASFA “increased the risk of permanent family dissolution for incarcerated mothers and their children” if the mothers and children are unable to see each other through no fault of their own but because the children have no transportation to visit their mothers in jail, prison, or delinquent institution (Allard, 2007, p. 32). An incarcerated mother in one study reported: My youngest daughter, they’re getting ready to terminate my rights as a parent, and I’m trying to just soak her in as much as I can. I’ll probably lose her before I get out of here. My oldest daughter I’m struggling with because I know she’s going through a lot and I know that there are some problems at her dad’s house. I feel frustrated. I have no control, and I think that’s got to be one of the worst things about being incarcerated is that you don’t have any control and you know that your children are hurting and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s almost like just holding my breath and pray that they can hold on. (Z. K. Snyder, 2009, p. 48) As expected, regardless of gender, incarcerated parents report worse mental health if they find out during incarceration that they will not be reunited with their children upon release (Foster, 2011). And studies on incarcerated women who lose child custody document the negative impacts, such as increased drug use and further jeopardizing regaining custody, and in some cases, other increased criminal involvement (S. Allen et al., 2010; Harp & Oser, 2018). One study of drug offending mothers incarcerated in Kentucky found that those who lost custody of their children “had no remaining reason to rehabilitate themselves” and “expressed profound feelings of guilt and remorse for the impact that their behaviors had on their children and expressed hope that their children would experience better lives than they had” (S. Allen et al., 2010, p. 160). This is particularly poignant in the context of C. A. Jones and Seabrook’s (2017) New Jane Crow—how the “collective efforts” of racial subjugation through slavery, “antebellum, eugenics, and mass incarceration” perpetuate Black women’s parental separation, denying them “the ability … to mother their children” (pp. 135, 150).

Prison Nurseries One of the most controversial debates surrounding the imprisonment of women is whether they should be allowed to keep infants and small children with them in prison. A recent study bemoaned that although far too little data indicate the frequency and outcome of incarceration pregnancies, “even less about the babies born to incarcerated women” and girls is known, other than that the “vast majority of these babies will be separated from their mothers within days of birth” (Goshin & Colbert, 2019, p. 657). Ironically, the early women prisoner champions stressed gender-stereotyped roles while most of them ignored “mother-infant bonding or the fostering of female convicts’ mothering skills as central to their rehabilitation” (L. M. Dodge, 2002, p. 245). Prison nurseries allow incarcerated mothers to parent, usually within the prison and usually infants, but some allow young children and, more recently out-of-prison-site living/residential structures (Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016; Haney, 2013; KwartengAmaning et al., 2019; Women’s Prison Association, 2009). The Progressive-era reformatories, with their home-like qualities, commonly allowed babies and children, but there is also evidence that children were allowed in some of the earlier prisons (Craig, 2009, p. 42S; Lekkerkerker, 1931). The Massachusetts reformatory built a nursery in 1880 and encouraged all the women, whether they had babies there or

not, to visit and care for the babies. “This ‘communal’ maternal care proved to be, in many ways, the most effective therapy” (Janusz, 1991, p. 11). New York’s Bedford Hills women’s state prison nursery, established in 1901, is the longest running and one of the most comprehensive prison nurseries in the United States (Craig, 2009; Freedman, 1981; Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016). For the most part, the era of prison nurseries slowed down considerably in the1960s, due to concerns of hospitals being far from many women’s prisons and some social workers saying prisons were no place for children (Baunach & Murton, 1973; Craig, 2009), although some U.S. women’s prisons continued to allow some children to live in the prisons, sometimes up to the age of 3 (Baunach, 1985, 1992; Craig, 2009; Haft, 1980; Haley, 1980; Heidensohn, 1985; Holt, 1982; McCarthy, 1980; Schupak, 1986). Prison nurseries began a resurgence around 2000 (Women’s Prison Association, 2009). Prison nursery studies pose promising findings, including keeping infants out of foster care (Women’s Prison Association, 2009), formation of child–mother bonds during infant development (Byrne, Goshin, & Joestl, 2010; Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016; Women’s Prison Association, 2009), lowering the mothers’ recidivism rates (Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016; Goshin, Byrne, & Henninger, 2014; Women’s Prison Association, 2009), increasing the likelihood of breastfeeding (Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016), positive endorsements from the mothers (Kwarteng-Amaning et al., 2019), and positive or at least, no adverse, effects on the infants and children (Women’s Prison Association, 2009). Studies comparing infants allowed to stay in prison nurseries with those taken from their mothers upon birth showed those allowed to stay in prison nurseries have a better bond with their mothers (Byrne et al., 2010) and by preschool show less depression and anxiety (Goshin, Byrne, & Blanchard-Lewis, 2014). Sadly, Haney’s (2013) study of a California nursery program found “what began as a promising alternative to punishment morphed into its own form of power and control” (p. 107). More specifically, “the facility had become a microcosm of the cultural contradictions of motherhood—as it simultaneously undermined, subsumed, and punished the inmates’ caretaking” (p. 112). The video recruiting the women did not portray the dire structure of the building or that the women were forbidden from working for wages. The program often shamed, thus undermined, the women’s parenting in front of their children, and “everything an inmate said or did with her child was analyzed by guards, counselors, and other inmates” and the “resulting evaluations were consequential” in determining release (p. 116). Notably, most of the children in the program appeared to benefit from it.

EDUCATIONAL, VOCATIONAL, AND RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS From the beginning of the 1900s through the 1980s, few changes were made in the programs and opportunities offered to women prisoners (Sarri, 1987). Women prisoners have historically been viewed as unworthy of or not smart enough for training or education, and frequently have less access to or are simply excluded from educational and vocational opportunities, work release programs, halfway houses, furloughs, sports and physical exercise, and other programs available to incarcerated men in the United States (T. Gray, Mays, & Stohr, 1995; Janusz, 1991; MartinezMerino, Martín-González, Usabiaga, & Martos-Garcia, 2017; J. M. Pollock, 2002; Rafter, 1989; R. R. Ross & Fabiano, 1986). However, an analysis of U.S. inmate survey data found a tendency for women to be more likely to be in college courses (Morash et al., 1994). This is not to imply that education and training programs in men’s prisons are adequate or should be the model, but there is severe gender disparity. Despite the prevalence of single mothers in general, but particularly among the incarcerated, it is troubling that the primary justifications offered for discrimination against women prisoners’ access to training and education include that they are not major breadwinners or in need of remunerative employment, and their most acceptable roles are those of mother and wife (Carlen, 1983; Díaz-Cotto, 1996; Feinman, 1983; Smart, 1976).

Historically, vocational training in women’s prisons focused on cosmetology, hairdressing, office skills, typing, sewing, and “homemaking,” but few trained women in skills to help them become financially independent upon their release. This is particularly troubling when examining the gender differences in prison educational and vocational programs. One study showed men in prison not only had more college classes than women but had access to vocational training “in welding, electronics, construction, tailoring, computers, and plumbing” (J. M. Pollock, 2002, p. 56). DíazCotto’s (1996) study of New Bedford Prison in Massachusetts reported that vocational classes offered in the 1970s were data processing and cosmetology, but during the 1980s, the programming broadened to also include electronics, general business education, building maintenance, computer programming, commercial art, food service, and printing (p. 204). She reports that in the 1980s, occasionally vocational training in nontraditional (“men’s”) jobs was implemented (e.g., auto mechanics), but it never lasted long because of factors such as the inability to place women in these jobs upon release, staff resistance, and competition with support for programs in men’s prisons. Furthermore, Sarri (1987) found that women prisoners who questioned policies and attempted to change their restricted educational and vocational opportunities were often punished—sometimes with long periods in solitary confinement. A 1994 study reported that women prisoners’ legal challenges were usually based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and “concentrated on basic education, vocational training and work, medical care (including mental health and drug treatment), and access to legal assistance” (Morash et al., 1994, p. 200). Sarri (1987) also reported that although some legal cases successfully challenged the sex discrimination in prison vocational programs and educational opportunities, the decisions of the federal courts “had little impact because of prison overcrowding, the dominance and resistance of male administrators, the punitive attitudes of legislators and court officials, and the fact that many social action organizations have ignored the plight of these offenders” (p. 417). Recent research attests to the impact, among both girls and boys, that vocational training and educational attainment have on reducing the likelihood of arrest, with slightly higher impacts for boys and African Americans (Amin et al., 2016). Research is quite consistent and encouraging that across genders and for youths and adults, educational attainment serves as a both resiliency factor from becoming involved in the CLS, and if involved, in deterring recidivism (Amin et al., 2016; D. R. Brewster, 2003; Middlemass, 2017; Rosário et al., 2016). However, one study of prison-released individuals found that not completing high school was related to (increased) men’s but not women’s likelihood of a new violent arrest (D. E. Olson, Stalans, & Escobar, 2016, p. 138). In addition to educational attainment assisting in employment for CLS-involved individuals (Schubert, Mulvey, Hawes, & Davis, 2018), it is benefits incarcerated individuals’ positive feelings about themselves (Rosário et al., 2016). Some research indicates that both the prisoners and the staff rank education as the most valuable resource for women during incarceration (Glick & Neto, 1982; Mawby, 1982). Led by Republicans and backed by President Clinton, the U.S. “Congress passed legislation in 1994 that denied Pell Grants—the primary source of funding for postsecondary correctional education (PSCE)—to prisoners, despite evidence that PSCE helped reduce recidivism and bolster carceral order” (Page, 2016, p. 357). Before and since the 1994 Pell Grant vote (in Clinton’s crime bill), incarcerated women had less access to college courses than men (T. Gray et al., 1995; J. M. Pollock, 2002), but the 1994 Pell Grant increased their access. Thankfully, “in 2015 the U.S. Department of Education announced the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative [and] there is a resurgence in the U.S. to restore Pell Grant college courses for prisoners” (Pettit, 2019, n.p.). The school-toprison pipeline has been addressed previously in this book but is again important given the discriminatory practices in it and the evidence that suggests CLS-involved youths are less likely to finish high school, which is another risk factor for subsequent incarceration (Horan & Widom, 2015; R. M. Johnson, 2015; Mowen & Brent, 2016; Rud, van Klaveren, Groot, & van den Brink, 2018). The resiliency factor of education in deterring any or recidivating offending, combined with the partial refunding of Pell college grants for prisoners, is particularly encouraging given a recent study of incarcerated Pennsylvania youths of whom 90%

aspired to attend college. These aspirations were not related to the youths’ gender or race (Kremer & Vaughn, 2019, p. 339). A review of research on incarcerated women’s experiences with prison sports/physical activity (SPA) programs highlighted many benefits, including increased social relations (with both other inmates and staff) and improved mental health (e.g., reduced stress, depression, hopelessness, and anxiety, and increased happiness, sense of well-being, relaxation, self-image and self-esteem, and selfawareness), yet, the women also reported difficulty in accessing prison SPAs, including “architecture unconducive to and the lack of open space for the practice of SPAs” (Martinez-Merino et al., 2017, p. 1161). Exercise has been found, both inside and outside of women’s prisons, to assist with reducing substance abuse (Muller, Havnes, Rognli, & Bukten, 2018) and perhaps even reducing recidivism (MartinezMerino et al., 2017). Much of the current programming in women’s prisons has a strong Christian theme. Little research addresses gender differences among prisoners and access to religious and spiritual opportunities. An exception to this is L. Ross’s (2000) description of how the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 affected incarcerated Native men more than Native women. This act states that “imprisoned Natives have the right to fully practice their Native traditions” (L. Ross, 2000, p. 141). In her study of Montana, L. Ross reports that white women and men have “full access” to their JudeoChristian–based religions and Native men have access to the sweat lodge, but Native women do not have access to a sweat lodge, which Ross points out is a violation of the 1978 act. Turning to women’s prison work, these have historically and often still are highly linked to gender stereotypes. An analysis of U.S. inmates’ surveys in the mid-1980s found women “disproportionately involved in cleaning (janitorial work) and kitchen work” while men were disproportionately involved in farm, forestry, maintenance, and repair work, and that men were paid more for their work (Morash et al., 1994, pp. 203–204). Dewey and her colleagues’ (2019) Wyoming prison ethnography is likely somewhat representative of the work, education, and recreation in other U.S. prisons. The prison’s most competitive and well-paid jobs are at the indoor tilapia farm, which raises the fish in massive tubs supervised by a full-time ichthyologist and delivers them for sale to a distributor from neighboring Colorado. Women may also work at the library, at a sewing workshop that makes uniforms and other items by order, and in the kitchen. When not at work, women may sign up for classes or groups that focus on crafts, religion, addictions treatment, exercise, reading, or education, with many women forming interest-based social groups among themselves around these activities. (Dewey et al., 2019, p. 21)

HEALTH NEEDS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES Some scholars identify incarcerated women as the individuals in the United States with the most serious health problems in the entire population, in or out of prison (T. L. Anderson, 2003; Covington, 2007; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019), with poor health and poor access to health care that preceded their incarceration (Braithwaite et al., 2008; Brousseau, Ahn, & Matteson, 2019; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019). Indeed, adjudication and incarceration are often offending girls and women’s primary access to health care (Belknap, Winter, & Cady, 2003; Brousseau et al., 2019). Physical health problems that are more prevalent among incarcerated women than incarcerated men (and women who are not incarcerated) include ovarian cancer, breast cancer, tuberculosis, hepatitis C infection, asthma, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and STIs (e.g., Baucom, Baucom, Brown, & Mouzon, 2006; Bonney, Clarke, Simmons, Rose, & Rich, 2008; LaVene, White, Waters, & Tulsky, 2003; D. S. Morse et al., 2017; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2008). An abundance of research confirms that incarcerated women’s substandard health before and after incarceration is due to their increased marginalization through intersections of

poverty, racism, abuse/trauma victimizations, homelessness, sexual minority status, poor access to preventive medical care, poor nutrition, chemical dependency, and limited education on health matters (T. L. Anderson, 2003; Asberg & Renk, 2012; Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Covington, 2007; DeHart, 2008; Girshick, 1999; Leigey & Reed, 2010; C. Lewis, 2006; S. M. Lynch, Fritch, & Heath, 2012; Maeve, 1999a; McDaniels-Wilson & Belknap, 2008; Messina, Grella, Burdon, & Prendergast, 2007; J. P. Meyer, 2019; M. B. Mitchell & Davis, 2019; Peltan & Cellucci, 2011; J. M. Pollock, 2002; Richie, 1996; R. R. Ross & Fabiano, 1986; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2008; Taxman & Cropsey, 2007; K. Walsh, DiLillo, & Scalora, 2011). But incarcerated women’s health is also damaged during (as well as before and after) incarceration, with “a preponderance of evidence confirm[ing] that incarceration in prison or jail is harmful to health” and “compounds health disparities related to race, ethnicity, sexual minority status, homelessness, substance use, psychiatric disorders, and stigma” (J. P. Meyer, 2019, p. 1017). In addition to there being high comorbidity (overlapping or co-occurring) of different types of physical and mental health and traumas (Koons-Witt & Crittenden, 2018; S. M. Lynch et al., 2014; M. B. Mitchell & Davis, 2019; D. S. Morse et al., 2017; Proctor, 2009; Salina, Lesondak, Razzano, & Parenti, 2011). Perhaps one of the most profound indicators of gender and incarceration health differences is premature mortality (defined as “dying between the ages 24 and 47”) (Massoglia, Pare, Schnittker, & Gagnon, 2014). Results of a large national study showed, as expected, in general, men compared to women, and people who have been incarcerated compared to people who have never been incarcerated, are more at risk of premature mortality. However, incarcerated women have consistently higher rates of premature mortality even after controlling for prior health, poverty, drug use, cigarette use, education, and race (Massoglia et al., 2014).

HIV/AIDS Incarcerated women have significantly higher rates of HIV/AIDS than nonincarcerated women and incarcerated men (Arriola, Braithwaite, & Newkirk, 2006; M. H. Cohen et al., 2019; Collica, 2013; DeGroot & Maddow, 2006; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Hankins et al., 1994; Kuo et al., 2019; Lawson & Fawkes, 1993; Maeve, 1999b). The epidemic HIV/AIDS is a crisis among currently and formerly incarcerated women due to their more prevalent drug abuse, sex work (particularly without condoms), sexual victimization (rape) backgrounds, and infected intimate partners (T. L. Anderson, 2003; Arriola et al., 2006; Baucom et al., 2006; M. H. Cohen et al., 2019; Covington, 2007; DeGroot & Maddow, 2006; Farley & Kelly, 2000; Hankins et al., 1994; A. Kim et al., 2002; Maeve, 1999a; Mullings, Marquart, & Hartley, 2003; Ravi, Blankenship, & Altice, 2007; Sterk, 1999; Zaitzow & West, 2003). Additionally, women with a history of physical victimization and drug use are more likely to both do sex work and have sex without condoms, making them particularly at risk of HIV/AIDS (Baucom et al., 2006; Ravi et al., 2007; Weir et al., 2008). A large, recent, longitudinal (8.5 years), national study of a U.S. cohort of women with and without HIV found 38% had been incarcerated at least once, and SMS (sexual minority status) women were 47% more likely, and those with histories of hard drug use (i.e., intravenous, crack, cocaine, or heroin) were 44% more likely, and with a physical and sexual abuse were 28% likely to have been incarcerated than their straight, non-hard-drug-using, and non-abused counterparts, and they were (15%) twice as likely as the never-incarcerated (7%) to die over the course of the study (M. H. Cohen et al., 2019). The HIV women who had been incarcerated were also were also more likely to be African American, younger, with less education, unstable housing, and living in a southern state (M. H. Cohen et al., 2019, p. 1092). Unfortunately, HIV medication and caretaking have been sorely limited in medical facilities responding to incarcerated women (Acoca, 1998a; J. Clark & Boudin, 1990; M. H. Cohen et al., 2019; Compton-Wallace, 2003; Hankins et al., 1994; Lawson & Fawkes, 1993), or even when it is done during incarceration, often stops upon the women’s release to the community.

Breast, Gynecological, Prenatal, Pregnancy, and Postpartum Health Care

Historically, and still, numerous researchers document that even basic gynecological care (including for non-pregnant women/girls), such as pap smears and breast exams, are sorely lacking (Braithwaite et al., 2008; Brousseau et al., 2019). Relatively little research addresses breast cancer among incarcerated women, other than their enhanced likelihood of dying of breast cancer given the risk markers for fatal breast cancer (i.e., being African American, having poor access to health care screenings and treatment, etc.) (Pickett, Allison, Twist, Klemp, & Ramaswamy, 2018). Far more research has been conducted on the cervical health of incarcerated women whose likelihood of cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer is heightened given their increased likelihood of sexual abuse (including in their childhood) and STIs (Brousseau et al., 2019; P. J. Kelly, Hunter, Daily, & Ramaswamy, 2017). Notably, among incarcerated women, those who were victimized by intimate partner abuse in the previous decade, were even less likely to receive mammograms or cervical cancer screenings (Pickett et al., 2018). Pregnant inmates in the United States “gestate largely unnoticed but within the enmeshed webs of carceral violence and reproductive control” (Sufrin, 2019, p. 34) while their health “is often compromised by lack of prenatal care, poor nutrition, sexually transmitted infections, history of sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, untreated or undertreated chronic medical and psychiatric illness, and drug and alcohol dependence” (Ferszt, Palmer, & McGrane, 2018, p. 18). Although between 5% and 10% of women arriving for their jail or prison sentences are pregnant (American Correctional Association, 1990; Arriola et al., 2006; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Goshin & Colbert, 2019; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Sufrin et al., 2009)5 and pose some of the worst health indicators, little routine data are systematically collected on incarcerated girls and women’s prenatal care, labor, and pregnancy outcomes (e.g., miscarriages, abortions, infant health and deaths, mother health and deaths, etc.) (Goshin & Colbert, 2019; Goshin, Sissoko, Neumann, Sufrin, & Byrnes, 2019; Paynter, Drake, Cassidy, & Snelgrove-Clarke, 2019; Sufrin, Mosher, Beal, Clarke, & Jones, 2017). Research published in the 1980s documented the doublewhammy of reproductive freedom for incarcerated women and girls whereby many had abortions against their will (Holt, 1982; Leonard, 1983; McHugh, 1980), at the same time that many who wanted legal abolitions, particularly indigents, were not allowed access to them (Haft, 1980; Holt, 1982; Knight, 1993; McHugh, 1980; Resnick & Shaw, 1980; Vitale, 1980; Vukson, 1987). Even a recent report documents the ways that incarcerated women’s requests for legal abortions can be compromised (M. Goodman et al., 2016). 5 Most studies report 5% to 10%, but a Maryland study reported that 17% of women admitted to prison were pregnant (Goshin & Colbert, 2019). More recent data indicate that (1) incarcerated pregnant women and girls are disproportionately likely to have high-risk pregnancies compared to nonincarcerated (community) pregnant women and girls (Ferszt, 2019; Paynter et al., 2019), at the same time that their prenatal care is acutely substandard (Barry, 1991; Daane, 2003; Ferszt & Clarke, 2012; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Mann, 1984; McHugh, 1980; Wooldredge & Masters, 1993); (2) some jail and prison staff are additionally hostile to inmates who are pregnant and/or have recently given birth, deeming them irresponsible, unworthy of additional medical care, and likely to be poor mothers (Acoca, 1998b; Compton-Wallace, 2003; Holt, 1982; McHugh, 1980; Sufrin, 2019; Tapia & Vaughn, 2010); (3) the conditions for pregnant women in jail may be, overall, worse than those in prison (Barry, 1991; Sufrin et al., 2017)6; and (4) there are highly inconsistent policies and practices across U.S. prisons and jails regarding not only prenatal care (Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016; Sufrin, 2019; Wooldredge & Masters, 1993) but also access to requested abortions and freedom from forced or coerced sterilization (Sufrin, 2019; Sufrin et al., 2017). In a recent study, women who gave birth while incarcerated reported poor prenatal care and severe lack of communication, including when a labor would be induced and contacting the woman’s husband or birthing coaches when the woman was in labor or not allowing them in for the labor/delivery (Fritz & Whiteacre, 2016). 6 One study of incarceration pregnancy outcomes found miscarriages in jail (14%) 2.3 times more likely than miscarriages in prison (6%) (Sufrin et al., 2017).

Ocen (2012) reported, “Instead of approaching the pregnancy and childbirth of incarcerated women with dignity and respect, the childbirth process is often an occasion for particularized punishment, degradation, and humiliation” (p. 1256). Although breastfeeding “could significantly benefit” both incarcerated women and their newborns, it is often denied in Canada and the United States (Paynter, 2018, p. 276). Hidalgo v. New Mexico Department of Corrections is “a pivotal case” in breastfeeding rights of a baby and incarcerated mother (Paynter, 2018, p. 279), whereby the judge ruled the prison must allow Monique Hidalgo to breastfeed her infant. “The judge said the state had failed to present compelling or rational evidence that harm and inconvenience to the department caused by Hidalgo or others breastfeeding outweighs the fundamental right of mothers to breast-feed their children” (Haywood, 2017, n.p.). Although many pregnant women in prisons and jails still face highly inadequate prenatal and postnatal conditions (e.g., Ocen, 2012; Sufrin, 2019; Sufrin et al., 2017), some research indicates that at least for some pregnant women and girls, incarceration allows them the only or best chance to get adequate health care and to get and stay off of drugs (Fortenberry, Warren, & Clark, 2006; K. Huang, Atlas, & Parvez, 2012; S. L. Martin et al., 1997; Tanner, 2010). This latter point is an indictment of the U.S. health system in that women and girls often have to be processed as offenders to get their most basic physical and psychological medical needs met (e.g., Belknap et al., 2003). One prison study found that the sooner in the pregnancy women came into the facility, the better/higher the babies’ birth weight at delivery (Tanner, 2010). Although there is limited research on breastfeeding among women who gave birth while incarcerated, one such study found that the women who breastfed were less likely to recidivate than the women who did not (Villanueva, From, & Lerner, 2009). Another study found that providing birth control and safe sex classes while women are incarcerated is far more effective than providing such training upon women’s release (J. G. Clarke et al., 2006). U.S. data on the frequency and circumstances of abortions among incarcerated women and girls are sparse (Sufrin, 2019; Sufrin et al., 2017), but the more easily collected data on carceral abortion policies indicate “very inconsistent and variable policies: some carceral institutions explicitly prohibit abortion at any point, some allow it only in the first trimester, others permit it only when there is a threat to the woman’s health, and some allow it under most circumstances” (Sufrin, 2019, p. 35). The Missouri Department of Corrections had a policy banning pregnant women from abortions, although this was struck down in 2008 by a higher court (Egerman, 2008; Sufrin et al., 2009). R. Roth’s (2011) U.S. study on statewide policies and pregnant inmates found that only a third of the states had a policy to inform pregnant incarcerated women and girls about abortions, and another third had policies that allowed the medical staff to discuss abortion as an option only if the inmate raises this right. A recent study of 21 state prisons and 6 county jails concluded the disproportionate denial of access to abortion among incarcerated women, finding 1% “of known pregnancy outcomes” were abortions and that “half of prisons allow abortion in both the first and second trimesters, 15% do not allow abortion at all, and 65% require the woman to pay” (Sufrin et al., 2017, p. 265). Moreover, even the prisons that allow abortions rarely provide the help with making appointments with abortion clinics or transportation to them (Sufrin et al., 2009). Clearly, in addition to forcing some incarcerated women and girls to give birth (including if the pregnancy is a result of rape), the overall policies result in disparate access to abortion for pregnant women and girls depending on the state and institution where they are incarcerated. It is important to remember that reproductive freedom goes beyond a legal right to safe abortions; it includes the right not to be forced to have an abortion or be sterilized. A 1980 study found incarcerated women with gynecological complaints were given unnecessary hysterectomies, taking away their chances to give birth and likely have children (McHugh, 1980). (It is difficult for poor women to adopt children.) Sufrin’s (2019, p. 36) excellent overview of incarcerated women’s reproductive freedom documents that over 100 women in California prisons were “unlawfully sterilized” between 2006 and 2017 and a Tennessee sheriff “incentivized” sterilization by reducing women’s jail sentences by 30 days if they would be sterilized.

The physical and emotional pain of being denied a badly wanted abortion or giving birth to a dearly wanted baby is further compounded by the common practice in many current U.S. prisons and jails to shackle pregnant inmates, often including while they are in labor (Ferszt et al., 2018; Goshin et al., 2019; Ocen, 2012; S. Y. Thomas & Lanterman, 2019). A 2018 publication reported that only 22 U.S. states currently “prohibit or limit shackling” pregnant women (Ferszt et al., 2018, p. 20), and a 2019 publication reported that 34 U.S. states have a combination of laws/policies restricting the shackling of pregnant prisoners, with discretion given to the “correctional staff on duty with little guidance” (S. Y. Thomas & Lanterman, 2019, p. 278). Moreover, 86% of states’ laws/policies on shackling pregnant prisoners “are inconsistent with the policy positions of medical and advocacy organizations,” such as the American Medical Association (S. Y. Thomas & Lanterman, 2019, p. 278). Ocen (2012) compares shackling incarcerated women in labor to slavery, emphasizing the racist context by which Black men were viewed as physically violent and “Black women were seen as dangerous through a sexualized lens, one that often focused on reproduction” (p. 1245). Ocen points out that “woman prisoner” has become synonymous with Black women, and how in slavery, Black women had to return to field work shortly after giving birth and/or had their children taken from them, making it difficult or impossible for these women and their children to bond or even know each other. Hauntingly similar to Ocen’s (2012) treatise, Tapia and Vaughn’s (2010) study of legal cases regarding incarcerated pregnant women—who appeared to be predominantly women of Color—reported on those who were raped in prison, kicked in the stomach by officers, ignored when informing officers they were going into labor, and so on, often resulting in miscarriages or the death of their babies.

The “Window on the Body” and Dental Health The mouth has been referred to as the “window on the body,” not solely for health issues, but “dental appearance” impacts social status assumptions and judgments, as well (Holden, 2018, p. 602). Research dating back to the early 1900s reports that women often entered prison with terrible teeth, were not provided with toothbrushes, and had little to no access to dentists (L. S. Bryant, 1918; Guibord, 1917). Far more recent research reports the substandard dental care in women’s prisons and released women’s serious dental problems (Badner & Margolin, 1994; Belknap, 2000; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2014). Incarcerated women have reported horrific dental practices, including not changing gloves between patients, talking on the phone while removing teeth, and ignoring all dental needs (including cleaning and filling teeth) except pulling teeth (Belknap, 2000). “Dental problems are among the most frequently reported health issues of drug users” (D. A. Murphy et al., 2016, p. 276), and a metanalysis of 28 studies on substance use disorder (SUD) found that individuals with SUD have significantly more tooth decay and periodontal disease than those without SUD (Baghaie, Kisely, Forbes, Sawyer, & Siskind, 2017). Given that women (25%) are almost twice as likely as men (14%) to be incarcerated for drug offenses, dentistry in prisons is likely a gendered issue (see Table 7.1). Moreover, methamphetamine (“meth”) drugs (known to erode enamel) are particularly harmful to dental health. Compared to non-meth users, meth users “are 3.5 times as likely to experience painful toothaches, 6.6 times to experience difficulty eating, and 8.6 times to be selfconscious due to dental appearance” (D. A. Murphy et al., 2016, p. 676).

Incarcerated Women and Girls With Disabilities Although research has documented prisons and jails as the biggest institutions “housing” the mentally ill in the United States (Steadman et al., 2009; Stevenson, 2015), and that women in jail are twice as likely as men in jail to be seriously mentally ill (Steadman et al., 2009), far less is known about physical and developmental disabilities of the incarcerated. In her historical account of women incarcerated in the West, A. M. Butler (1997) notes the high rate of women who are deaf, wondering if they had the opportunity to communicate in the processing of the crime charges that led them to prison. She reported that the guards and wardens had little concern for the blind and deaf women. “Disabled prisoners, confused by their surroundings, hampered by narrow societal perceptions, and removed from even the semblance of care, must have yielded to fear, anger, and depression,” which “further alienated them from a disinterested administration” (A. M. Butler, 1997, pp. 156–157).

Owen (1998) briefly discusses women in wheelchairs in her study of a California women’s prison, and how these women are even more restricted in the prison, largely given their greater reliance on staff. She states: “Women in wheelchairs have specific problems in the prison world such as mobility, obtaining specialized care, developing a satisfactory program, and establishing satisfactory relationships with other prisoners” (Owen, 1998, p. 102). Anecdotal data include an incarcerated woman in a wheelchair who is badly sunburned after being left out in the yard (Acoca, 1998a) and an incarcerated woman whose hearing was damaged by antibiotics as a child and who then lost most of the rest of her hearing after being pistol-whipped by her boyfriend shortly before her incarceration (Maeve, 1999a). The latter woman was 31, HIV-positive, in prison for the first time, and placed in isolation where the health care providers had little access to her and could only yell through a door where they could not be heard (Maeve, 1999a). The most comprehensive study of incarcerated women’s disabilities was a large survey of Oklahoman women. Two fifths of the women reported impaired vision, over 5% reported a hearing impairment, and one fifth indicated a physical disability (Holley & Brewster, 1996). Although far less research has been conducted on incarcerated women and girls’ rates of learning disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), similar to such studies on incarcerated men and boys, such individuals are highly overrepresented among the incarcerated (Farooq, Emerson, Keoghan, & Adamou, 2016; Henne & Troshynski, 2019; Hennessey, Stein, Rosengard, Rose, & Clarke, 2010; McGinley & McMillan, 2019). Moreover, studies have found ADHD is more prevalent among female than male prisoners (B. S. Cahill et al., 2012; Farooq et al., 2016). Studies on TBI among women prisoners is rare, particularly how it is related to further disability (McGinley & McMillan, 2019). Research is inconclusive regarding whether there is a gender difference in TBI among the incarcerated. Research is conclusive, however, that incarcerated girls and women are far more likely than incarcerated boys and men to have a TBI caused by an assault (McGinley & McMillan, 2019; E. Moore, Indig, & Haysom, 2014). This finding might be expected given the high risk of TBIs among women (including trans women) sex workers, often incurred on the job (Baumann et al., 2019) and that women survivors of intimate partner abuse are more likely to be in prison (e.g., K. Monahan, 2019; D. S. Morse et al., 2017) and are at risk of TBIs caused by their partners (K. Monahan, 2019) (compared to women who are not survivors of intimate partner abuse). In conclusion, the few studies that address women prisoners who are physically disabled suggest quite dire implications. Far more research is needed in this area. Additionally, a growing problem regarding the health needs of incarcerated women concerns older women, particularly given that traditional prison health care systems are “designed for young, healthy men” (Reviere & Young, 2004; see also Aday & Krabill, 2011; Krabill & Aday, 2007; Leigey & Hodge, 2012). One study found compared with older incarcerated men, older incarcerated women have significantly worse physical health and mental health disorders (Leigey & Hodge, 2012).

Mental Health Problems Despite the now well-documented trauma histories that the majority of women prisoners report, access to adequate mental health workers has been an ongoing problem in women’s prisons. As recently as the 1970s, Dwight Prison in Illinois had a visiting psychiatrist who worked at the prison one day a month and no psychologist, while unqualified persons, such as wives of the guards and the prison switchboard operator, were hired as therapists (L. M. Dodge, 2002). It is more than a little ironic that the war on drugs fueled the massive explosion in women’s incarceration rates, yet women often have trouble accessing drug treatment programs both before their arrests and incarceration (Alemagno, 2001; Sterk, 1999) and during their incarceration (Alemagno, 2001; Belknap, 2000; T. Gray et al., 1995; Moon et al., 1993; Mullings, Pollock, & Crouch, 2002; Prendergast, Wellisch, & Falkin, 1995; Wellisch, Prendergast, & Anglin, 1996). Psychotherapy and drug treatment programs are disproportionately replaced with facility-issued medication (drugs) for “emotional disorders,” particularly psychotropic drugs, among incarcerated women and girls (compared to men/boys) (Auerhahn & Leonard, 2000; Casey & Bentley, 2019;

Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Heidensohn, 1985; Mann, 1984; Allison Morris, 1987; R. R. Ross & Fabiano, 1986), including for women trying to get “clean and sober” (Auerhahn & Leonard, 2000). Additionally, for all offenders, including women/girls, those with drug and alcohol addictions have among the highest rates of recidivism (Lemieux, Barthelemy, Schroeder, & Thomas, 2012; Moon et al., 1993; Salina et al., 2011; Singer, Bussey, Song, & Lunghofer, 1995). Stated alternatively, the war on drugs was a significant feeder of women’s mass incarceration, and incarcerated women and girls are disproportionately prescribed psychotropic drugs while offered fewer drug treatment programs (see Lemieux et al., 2012). Casey and Bentley’s (2019) recent study of incarcerated women’s experiences with psychotropic drugs found although some women felt the drugs helped them have “control over their life” and “be better versions of themselves,” they more commonly believed that psychotropic drugs were used in lieu of more appropriate medications and were abused and misused, mental health services and psychiatric care were seriously limited, and the administration procedures of psychotropic drugs were “disrespectful.” Examples of disrespectful administration procedures included long pill lines, pill lines that included standing in the rain and getting “soaking wet,” and fingers run in women’s mouths to check if they swallowed (Casey & Bentley, 2019, p. 8). One study found that the women jailees who were given psychotropic drugs (often for nonmedical reasons) experienced “disproportionately harsh outcomes” in their trials, where they were falling asleep or were too drugged to take part in their own defenses (Auerhahn & Leonard, 2000). Another important point has been made by L. Ross (2000) concerning incarcerated Native American women prisoners’ overly prescribed psychotropic drugs, due to the counseling staff misinterpreting these women’s “detachment” in adaption to the harsh prison conditions “as a suppression of anger…. The women believed that because the counseling staff did not know how to relate to them as Native Americans, they tried to control them with drugs, which they were forced to take” (p. 134). This is consistent with additional research claiming incarcerated women and girls’ increased likelihood of nonmedical (i.e., psychotropic) drug prescriptions is due to prison staff disproportionately valuing or justifying the control of women/girls (relative to men/boys) (Auerhahn & Leonard, 2000; ComptonWallace, 2003; Figueira-McDonough & Sarri, 1987; Fletcher & Moon, 1993). Notably, one recent national study on prisoners with co-occurring disorders found that while compared to men prisoners, women prisoners were more likely to be prescribed psychotropic drugs, women were also more likely to access and participate in both clinical and nonclinical mental health and substance abuse programs (Koons-Witt & Crittenden, 2018). Another recent study found that as incarcerated women transitioned back to the community, wealthier women were more likely to continue mental health treatment and African American women were less likely to be able to continue substance treatment (D. S. Morse et al., 2017). Most drug treatment programs in women’s prisons are drug education classes, typically 12-step programs designed for male addicts (Mullings et al., 2002; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2014). One study found that although incarcerated women positively evaluated self-help substance abuse programs, they were also worried that these programs failed to address “the long-standing, serious problems which contributed to their drug use, such as abuse and mental illness, nor the drug-using milieu which awaited them upon release” (Moe & Ferraro, 2003, p. 69).

THE PRISON SUBCULTURE The information reported to this point suggests that just about everything that is bad in men’s prisons is worse in women’s prisons (e.g., the increase in incarceration rates; HIV rates; proximity to friends and family; access to educational, vocational, medical, and recreational programs and professionals; trauma histories, visits from family, etc.). However, one significant gender distinction that is arguably in favor of women is the prison subculture, particularly how the prisoners treat each other. The prison subculture has to do with prisoners’ norms and values and the adjustment and coping prisoners do to counterbalance the negative aspects of confinement (Hart, 1995). Owen (1998) states: “In the simplest sense, a study of prison is about doing time” (p. 63). She reports that in a practical sense, “the majority of women shape the

day around a job, vocational training, or a school assignment” (p. 103). However, it is useful to remember the incarcerated women are individuals who “do time” differently, often dependent on their age, ethnicity, class, family relations, abuse histories, and sexual orientation (Bosworth, 1999), and just as women’s experiences outside of prison are diverse, so are their prison experiences (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000). Loper (2006) found that incarcerated women who reported the most stress about their children had more difficulties in adjusting to prison. Girshick (1999) found incarcerated women’s adaptation to prison was based on “acceptance [realize you are in prison and make the best of it], isolation, state families, religious dedication and resignation” (p. 82). Similarly, A. M. Butler (1997) identified various strategies adopted by individual women, including compliance (submissive), resistance (rebellious), acting alone, and acting in concert with other prisoners. Sadly, some of the women “chose escape through death. Many endured a day-to-day stoicism until release” (A. M. Butler, 1997, p. 17). There is speculation that men are more likely to adapt to incarceration by isolating themselves, whereas women adjust by forming close relationships with other prisoners (J. G. Fox, 1975; Maeve, 1999). The friendships and networks women prisoners form are based on a variety of characteristics, which Díaz-Cotto (1996) describes best: “Women prisoners generally formed informal groups based on housing assignments, race and ethnicity, homegirl networks, social and recreational activities, prison family/kinship networks, and political underground reform-oriented activities…. Latinas further subdivided according to nationality and language spoken” (p. 295). Girshick (1999) states that most of the women find it difficult to trust anyone and are most likely to trust other prisoners from their own “home” towns. Kruttschnitt and her colleagues (2000) also found a significant lack of trust but that it varied across the prisons they studied. Most women reported friendship networks of one or two other prisoners, not groups of other women. One ethnography found that “social relationships—with other prisoners and with staff—are fundamental to gaining the social capital necessary for prison survival” (Owen et al., 2017, p. 82). In large part, this is achieved through creating and sustaining “sisterhoods” with other prisoners (Owen et al., 2017, p. 84). A sizeable body of research indicates that while there is racial tension/racism and segregation among the prisoners in women’s prisons, it is significantly less than in men’s prisons (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Owen, 1998; Owen et al., 2017). This does not mean that racism is never an issue and does not occur in women’s prisons. One study found tensions across races/ethnicities was most likely to be a factor in terms of resources, particularly beliefs of unfair (raced) access to prisoners’ jobs (Owen, 1998, p. 154). L. Ross (2000) reported strained relationships between American Indian and White women in prison: “Racism spilled over into their interactions,” and this was largely due to racism regarding Native women’s culture, such as ridiculing their religion. Díaz-Cotto (1996) reported that although personal and sexual relationships among the women were often interracial and interethnic, “divisions based on race and ethnicity were entrenched enough to make the formation of coalitions among large numbers of prisoners difficult” (p. 296). She describes the unique problem for monolingual Spanish-speaking prisoners, who were forbidden to speak Spanish to anyone. Thus, they were not only penalized when they spoke Spanish but their inability to understand the prison rules, provided only in English, made them more prone to rule infractions they were unaware existed (Díaz-Cotto, 1996, 2000). The limited research on incarcerated women’s social economic class indicates this is significant. One study found that those few prisoners from middle-class backgrounds were more likely to bring up their class and found the initial adaptation to prison far more difficult. Some of the poorer prisoners speculated middle-class women had a more difficult adjustment to prison because the conditions were so much worse than their lives outside, whereas for some poor women the prison resources were better than their resources out of prison (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000). Age was also somewhat of a predictor of how the women “did time.” Women under 30 reported a broad range of prison experiences, from good to terrible, whereas women in their 30s seemed comfortable with the prison life and code. The older “lifers” (women with life sentences who had been in prison for a long time) largely reported coming into prison depressed or rebellious, but they learned to develop a resigned attitude (Kruttschnitt

et al., 2000). The women in their 40s and older who were not life-term prisoners, like the women under 30, were varied in their responses of doing time. Some isolated themselves from others, and many had been in prison before and found the routine easier to come back to. Regardless of how long they had been in prison, the older prisoners viewed the younger prisoners as difficult to understand and get along with and viewed them with some disdain for seeing prison as a game (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000). In a classic article by Bradley and Davino (2002, p. 351) called “When Prison Is ‘The Safest Place I’ve Ever Been,’” the authors identified four categories of incarcerated women’s perceptions of prison safeness. The fewest number (9%) of the women were in the “not safe” category; they experienced the prison as chaotic and dangerous. A quarter (25%) of the women were in the “not safe but I understand why it may be safer for other women” category because they had heard of some of the lives and dire circumstances out of prison of other inmates. Twenty-eight percent of the women were in a category that viewed the prison as “no more or less safe than home.” Remarkably, despite the terrible conditions of most women’s prisons, the largest category (38%) was women who viewed the prison as “safer than other places.” As expected, the more childhood and adulthood interpersonal violence the women had in their lives outside of prison, the more likely they were to be in this last category (Bradley & Davino, 2002). Notably, another study found that some women who were survivors of abuse (particularly intimate partner abuse) outside of the prison reported similarities between that abuse and the prison experience (Kruttschnitt, Gartner, & Miller, 2000). Doing time was also impacted by the culture of the prison staff; not surprisingly, in institutions where the staff was less hostile and more respectful to the prisoners, the prisoners evaluated their experiences more positively (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000). Also, women prisoners “search for safety” in part by presenting themselves with confidence, “looking tough,” and learning about this through their fellow prisoners (Owen et al., 2017, pp. 72–73). In contrast to the gendered nature of women prisoners’ tighter relationships with each other relative to men prisoners, some research suggests that among prisoners, men “stick together” in adherence to the “convict code”—not ratting out another inmate— more so than women prisoners (Kruttschnitt, 1981; Owen, 1998). One study found that this is because they are more afraid than the men prisoners of losing days (due to rule violations) because they are more stressed out about their families outside of prison: “For many women, reuniting with their children becomes a primary goal and acts as a form of informal social control during the days in prison” (Owen, 1998, p. 120). Similarly, Díaz-Cotto’s (1996) analysis of women prisoners in the 1960s and 1970s showed that the women tended to prioritize “family matters over other concerns,” such as engaging in work strikes, riots, or widespread litigation (p. 271). As a result they were seen as “apolitical” relative to incarcerated men who were active, and women’s “apolitical” practices deemed them as unworthy by the media, Department of Corrections administrators, and others of the reform and support offered to some of the more political and active men prisoners at that time. Thus, women prisoners tend to focus more on how they are going to get out as quickly as they can to be reunited with family, while the male prisoners appear to feel more empowered to fight the oppressions in the prisons. Further, Owen (1998) claims that the primacy of incarcerated women’s relationships with their children “has an impact on the values shaping prison culture in several ways, such as making conversations about children sacred, acknowledging the intensity and grief attached to these relationships, sanctioning those with histories of hurting children, and other childspecific cultural beliefs or behaviors” (p. 120). Historian L. M. Dodge (2002) states that the careful monitoring of incarcerated women’s romantic or sexual interest with each other in most institutions, starting with reformatories, cultivated defiance, providing a powerful inmate subculture. She notes the irony of this given the reformatory and prison climates that have attempted to make incarcerated women and girls subservient. In the 1960s, the focus on gender differences in the prison subculture was almost exclusively on how incarcerated women (and girls) are far more likely than incarcerated men (and boys) to form close emotional and sexual bonds with each other, which were identified as “pseudofamilies” (Giallombardo, 1966; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). Hensley and his colleagues (2002) identify a number of researchers publishing between 1913 and

1931 who were repulsed (homophobic) not only by the same-sex sex between incarcerated girls, but that this was often across race (White and Black) and some girls had numerous sexual partners (pp. 127–128). Both homophobic and more progressive scholars of incarcerated women and girls tend to agree that girls’ socialization to be caring and to value family relationships resulted in the structuring of prison “pseudofamilies,” what Díaz-Cotto less patronizingly refers to as “family/kinship networks” (Bowker, 1981; Carter, 1973; Díaz-Cotto, 1996; Ford, 1929; Giallombardo, 1966, 1974; Girshick, 1999; Owen, 1998). Some research from the 1980s suggests that the family/kinship networks were either exaggerated in earlier studies or became less common in women’s prisons (Bowker, 1981; Mahan, 1984; Mawby, 1982). Importantly, not all members in these family/kinship networks are sexual with other family members, and both SMS and non-SMS girls and women may belong to these networks (Mann, 1984; J. M. Pollock, 2002). One scholar claimed that many of the sexual relationships are based more on a sexual and romantic connotation than actual sexual activity (J. M. Pollock, 2002). Díaz-Cotto (1996) reports that prison family/kinship networks “were created to address a wide range of prisoner concerns,” including “the potential for contributing to prisoner politicization and reform-oriented organizing” (p. 298). Recent research finding the presence of these family/kinship networks also points out that many incarcerated women are serving time with their actual family members (not those formed in the prison) (Owen et al., 2017, p. 85). While some women and girls arrive at prison or juvenile institutions already identifying as lesbians, others assume a lesbian status only while incarcerated, and others “come out” as lesbians while institutionalized and maintain this status after their release (Díaz-Cotto, 1996; Girshick, 1999). The percentage of incarcerated women and girls who have sexual relationships with other women and girls while incarcerated ranges from 25% to over 80% (Belknap et al., 2014; Hensley, 2002; Maeve, 1999; Mawby, 1982; Moyer, 1978; Owen, 1998). Owen’s (1998) study of almost 300 women in a California prison reported that some women come into prison “straight” and stay that way, others come in lesbian and stay that way, and still others, while identifying as lesbian before coming to prison, “avoid any sexual or emotional entanglements while in prison” (p. 138). Girshick (1999) believes that most of these sexual relationships are driven by the desire for emotional closeness. Faith’s (1993, p. 214) research found that not all incarcerated women who love another woman prisoner are “lesbian” and that some incarcerated women who “learn to love” another woman in prison learn to love themselves in the process. Specifically, she addresses, often through incarcerated women’s own words, how these first experiences of loving another woman were the first time they had someone who knew a lot about them still love them and how they came to feel better about themselves and their bodies through this love of another woman. Faith does not view these woman-loving-woman relationships as simply a replacement because the women have no men available to love but rather observes that many of the women who have their first lesbian experience in prison “discover they are attracted to women in their own right.” Moreover, Faith states: Prisons tend to intensify every emotion, and when women fall in love it can become a consuming passion even if the circumstances prevent sexual contact. As is the case with many lesbians in the “free” world, for women in prison sexual passion is often subordinate to the shared emotional comfort, social camaraderie, spiritual communion and political connectedness that can be achieved in balanced relationships. (Faith, 1993, p. 215) In their study of same-sex sexual activities in women’s prisons, Hensley and his colleagues (2002) distinguish between the deprivation and importation models that have been used to explain incarcerated women and girls’ sexual behavior. The deprivation model explains this sexual activity as due to the denial of access to boys and men combined with the pains of imprisonment resulting in the physiological and psychological desire for affect, acceptance, and sex. The importation model hypothesizes that incarcerated same-sex activities are driven more by social and cultural characteristics that predispose individuals to the subcultural values during incarceration (Hensley et al., 2002, p. 126). Their study of incarcerated women found

“equal, but limited support for both models” (p. 135), and they believe both are “essentials explanations” that fail to capture static sexual identities (p. 137). The most predictive characteristics of same-sex sexual activity were age and sentence length: Younger women and women with longer sentences were more likely to participate in same-sex sex than their older and shorter-sentence counterparts. Owen (1998) reports that same-sex relationships are sometimes the source of fights in the prison; given their intensity, “jealousy seems to be at the base of many of the [prison] conflicts” (p. 146). Maeve (1999) discusses the ways in which women prisoners have taken on all the guilt and “the bad girl” identification from both their child sexual abuse histories and their offending histories, and then if they identify as lesbians in prison, this is one more confirmation, supported by the homophobic policies of the prisons, that makes them feel bad about themselves and reinforces their “evil woman” self-images. Notably, one study found that a strict policy against “homosexuality” in women’s prisons is more likely to foster than discourage same-sex sex (Mahan, 1984). Moreover, the staff’s obsession with deterring homosexuality often results in women being penalized simply for forming friendship bonds with other prisoners. Subsequently, many women report a fear of developing emotional ties with other prisoners, which exacerbates their feelings of isolation and loneliness and their inability to cope with imprisonment (Maeve, 1999; Moyer, 1980). Due to the intensity of homophobia, there is a troubling tendency by prison experts/researchers, prison administrators and workers, and lay people alike to mistakenly lump together consensual same-sex sex and same-sex rape. This alarming practice is most prevalent when discussing prisons. It is important to distinguish consensual same-sex sex from same-sex rape, just as it is important to distinguish consensual heterosexual sex from heterosexual rape. A recent study of incarcerated girls who identified as lesbian/gay/bisexual found they “reported feeling targeted and picked on by some staff,” which (understandably) felt “unfair” and a “double-standard” given “that when other girls sat close together or held hands, these behaviors were ignored,” but when they did, the staff labeled with “a ‘boundary issue’ worthy of a consequence” (Holsinger & Hodge, 2016, p. 33).

SEXUAL ABUSE OF WOMEN AND GIRLS WHILE INCARCERATED From the 1970s to the 1990s, a number of publications addressed the sexual victimization of women incarcerated in prisons and jails by male staff (Aylward & Thomas, 1984; Human Rights Watch, 1996, 1998; Sims, 1976; Van Ochten, 1993). In 1974, Joan Little, an African American woman in a North Carolina County jail appealing a larceny conviction, struggled with a White male jailer who wielded an ice pick as a weapon as he tried to orally rape her. While Little resisted his assault, the jailer fell on the ice pick he was using. Although such abuses were common of jailed women, especially in the South (Sims, 1976), Little’s case was unusual because the jail staff rapist died and she was charged with his murder. The national outrage resulted in Little being allowed a change of venue, where she was acquitted (Human Right Watch, 1996). A powerful book published by the Human Rights Watch Women’s Rights Project in 1996, All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons, describes not only violent rapes of incarcerated women by male guards but also the vulnerability of many incarcerated women to sexual “relationships” with guards (and other prison staff), which appear consensual at first. For example, the book describes how the sheer loneliness of prison life places women at risk of “falling for” an unprofessional and unethical guard who pursues romantic and sexual relationships. To compound the trauma of these exploitative and abusive experiences, this study found that incarcerated women who reported the sexual abuses were frequently retaliated against by the rapist/staff, other guards, and/or the entire prison system (Human Rights Watch, 1996). Moreover, women who became pregnant from sexual encounters with guards were sometimes forced to have abortions they did not want, one reporting being dragged through abortion protesters at an abortion clinic (Human

Rights Watch, 1996). The “punishment” of the sexual abusing prison staff was typically being transferred to work at a different (usually men’s) prisons (Human Rights Watch, 1996). Although sexual abuse in jails and prisons has no doubt decreased since the Middle Ages, and likely even since the 1980s, there was never any systematic research using anonymous inmate surveys to determine the extent to which it occurs until 2007. As a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the National Inmate Survey (NIS) was designed and implemented by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in a large sample of men’s and women’s prisons and youth incarceration facilities across the United States (A. Beck et al., n.d.; A. J. Beck & Harrison, 2007). This large study on the adult institutions reported, “The estimated number of State and Federal inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled 60,500 (or 4.5% of the Nation’s prisoners)” (A. J. Beck & Harrison, 2007, p. 2). Curiously, the authors report many details about many prisons but don’t provide a gender comparison of overall sexual victimization rates among the prisoners across the large sample. However, eyeballing the tables, it is clear that (1) among men’s prisons and among women’s prisons, there is significant variation in overall risk of sexual victimization, and risk of sexual victimization by another inmate and by a prison staff member; (2) women as well as men are at significant risk of sexual victimization by another inmate (of the same sex); (3) incarcerated women are more at risk of being sexually victimized by other inmates than they are by prison staff; and (4) there appears to be far more variation in sexual victimization rates among individual prisons than by gender. Perhaps more surprising, as noted by K. S. Buchanan (2012), is the final finding that women prison workers perpetrate a considerable amount of sexual coercion of incarcerated men “and that some of this coercion is violent” (p. 1658). Regarding the Bureau of Justice Statistics findings on sexual victimization of youths incarcerated in juvenile facilities, the report states that of all of these victimizations in 2005–2006, 36% were of girls (64% of boys), and 27% of the youth-on-youth sexual victimizations were of girl victims (73% of boy victims), and 51% of the staff-on-youth sexual victimizations were of girls (49% of boys) (Beck et al., 2008). This is a bit misleading as 15% of those incarcerated, according to this report, are girls. If we control for the rate incarcerated, then girls were 6 times as likely as boys to be sexually abused by a staff member, more than twice as likely to be sexually abused by another youth, and more than 3 times as likely to be sexually abused by a staff or youth as boys.7 It is irresponsible that this government report does not make these adjustments. 7 Using data from the “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement: 1997-2010” at http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/Age_Sex.asp that I downloaded March 5, 2013, which appear to be the same numbers Beck et al. (2008) used: In 2006 13,723 girls and 78,998 boys were in residential placements in the United States. I used the numbers to calculate the likelihoods. Having done considerable research on sexual victimization of prisoners, K. S. Buchanan (2012) provides a careful overview of these 2007 NIS data. She is surprised by the prevalence findings of women guards sexually victimizing incarcerated men and concludes that perhaps the dominant sexual script of masculine, sexually abusive/coercive men and sexually passive women is different in the dynamics of a prison, where women guards have far more power than the incarcerated men they oversee. Certainly, more research needs to be conducted on this topic, and qualitative research might better address the fear, humiliation, and other contextual variables comparing the dyads of the victim–offender relationship (e.g., staff vs. inmate, woman staff vs. man staff). These studies seem to overlook the important gender distinction that the raped men do not bear the risk of becoming pregnant, being forced to have an abortion, or being forced to give birth to a baby conceived in rape. A 1998 report by the Human Rights Watch titled Nowhere to Hide, and an excellent article by Culley (2012) documents the “pervasive, routine, and horrific” sexual degradation and assaults by staff in Michigan State prisons against almost 500 women: “extensive sexual abuse, including rape, sexual harassment, forced abortions, privacy violations, cross-gender pat-downs, forced public nudity, threats, and retaliation against victims who reported abuse” (p. 209). Culley effectively reports how these women’s extreme sexual violations over two decades would never have

received any justice, or the perpetrators stopped or held accountable, if it were not for the brave women who continued to fight for their rights and the lawyers who took this case, Tracy Neal v. The Michigan State Department of Corrections. Similarly, articles by Tapia and Vaughn (2010) and Sodja (2007) highlight the extremity of sexual (and other) assaults by guards of women prisoners. Tapia and Vaughn (2010) focus on the rapes and assaults of pregnant inmates, and Sodja examines U.S. women’s prisons as violating the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted in 1977 by the United Nations. Thus, another point related to sexual abuse in prison is the different way that incarcerated men and women may experience cross-gender searches. In a 1993 court case, Jordan v. Gardner (986 F2d. 1521 Ninth Circuit), the court noted that given the expert testimony documenting women inmates’ far greater likelihood of sexual and physical abuse by men (than men inmates’ experience perpetrated by women), cross-gender body searches would be more traumatic for women than men inmates (Weiser, 2002, p. 47). That is, given the extraordinarily high incidence of abuse in incarcerated women’s lives, particularly sexual abuse perpetrated by males, having strip searches performed by males could be extremely traumatic. Moreover, cross-gender searches of survivors of sexual abuse would likely run counter to any psychological treatment for these abuses provided by the prison (Farkas & Rand, 1999). It is likely that regardless of inmates’ gender and the gender of their sexual abusers, body and strip searches are more traumatic for anyone who has survived these sexual abuses than someone who has not.

SUMMARY Over the past few decades the amount of scholarship on incarcerated women and girls has exploded, likely related to a corresponding explosion in their incarceration rates and the number of feminist scholars. It is impossible to review all of the research and I hope that this chapter adequately captured the history of gender and incarceration, as well as the ongoing forms of sexism—that intersect with racism, classism, sexuality, and so on—that continue to exist in the carceral systems today. Although this chapter documents many troubling practices, the number of innovative programs for incarcerated women and girls has grown (Chapter 14 reports on some of them). Owen and her colleagues (2017) concluded their recent ethnography listing the conditions of women’s prisons; this chapter, similarly, will end with this list: “unsafe housing, crowding, aging and inadequate physical plants, and unconstitutional healthcare” (pp. 170–171). Research indicates women’s elevated desires to quit offending. Compared to men, a recent study found women are more likely to be motivated to clear their CLS records due to concerns about their reputations (as “offenders”), wanting to be good caretakers, and moral and religious influences, and they are more likely to acknowledge their own flaws (Chen & Adams, 2019).

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure The x axis on this line graph shows two trend lines – one each for male and female U.S. prisoners under state and federal jurisdictions per 100,000 U.S. residents, between 1975 and 2017. The x axis shows the years between 1975 and 2025 in intervals of 10 years. The y axis shows the imprisonment rate per 100,000 U.S. residents and the values on this axis range from 1 to 1000, in three intervals labeled 1, 10, 100 and 1000. Horizontal lines are seen at each of these values. The trend line for women starts just below the rate of 10 and gradually climbs between 1975 and 1995 towards the imprisonment rate of 100 and then levels off until 2017, just below this rate. The trend line for men starts about a third of the way between 100 and 1000 before climbing gradually between 1975 and 1995 to almost 1000 and then plateaus at

almost 1000 until 2017. Back to Figure The x axis on this line graph shows the years between 1960 and 2010 in intervals of 10 years and each of the two trend lines shows the yearly percent changes in the number of male and female prisoners incarcerated in U.S. state and federal prisons in this period. The y axis shows the percent change per year and the values on this axis range from -20% to 25%, in intervals of 5. A dashed horizontal line is seen at 0. Both trend lines start at 0 around 1960 and go up to about 4% before falling back to below 0 between 1962 and 1970. The lowest percent change is around -5% around 1966 for women and about -10% around 1967 for men. The trend line for women stays between 0 and 15% between 1970 and 1980 with two large spikes around 1975 and 1977, with smaller percent changes for the other years in that decade. The trend line for men spikes to about 14% around 1969 before falling to about -15% around 1970 and goes back up to about 13% around 1971. It falls again to about –4% around 1974 and goes back up to between 23% and 16% between the years, 1974 and 1978. Both trend lines fall to about 2% around 1980 and rise to around 12% for men and around 15% to 16% for women around 1982. They also rise between 1981 and 1983 with the percent change for men being more than that for women in this period. The percent change from around 1983 to 1990 stays between 5% and 12% for women and between 6% and 25% for men in the same period. Both trend lines gradually fall between 1990 and 2000. The one for women has smaller peaks and dips than those for men. The highest percent change in this period for women is 9% and 0 for women and that for men is 25% and 0. The trend line for men has larger peaks and dips than that for women. The percent change for women is between 0 and 4% between 2000 and 2007 and that for men is between -1% and 5% in the same period. Both trend lines fall between 0 and -3% between 2007 and 2010. Both trend lines go up to around 1% for women and 3% for men around 2013, before falling back down again to around -3% around 2017. Back to Figure The title of this stacked horizontal bar graph reads, the U.S. 2017 gender × race representation of incarcerated adults and youths [superscript a]. The x axis represents the percentage and the values range from 0 to 100% in intervals of 10. The y axis shows the following for categories of incarcerated youth and adults: Women, men, girls and boys. The six ethnicities represented for each of these four categories are: African American Latinx White Native American/Alaskan Native [superscript *] Asian American/Pacific Islander [superscript *] Other [superscript b]

The percentage representation of each ethnicity between each of the four categories as seen on this graph are tabulated below: Native Asian African Category American Latinx White American/Alaskan American/Pacific Other Native Islander Women

19

18

47

16

NA

NA

Men

34

24

29

13

NA

NA

Girls

35

19

38

3

1

4

Boys

42

21

32

1

1

3

The note below the graph reads: Superscript a: Adult incarceration data are calculated from Table 9 in Bronson and Carson (2019) and youth data are calculated from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2019). Superscript b: Includes everyone who did not fit into the other categories. For adults, this includes biracial and multiracial individuals; Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders (AA/PI); and Native Americans/Alaska Natives (NA/AN). For youths, NA/AN and AA/PA were distinctly included; this is solely biracial and multiracial youth. Superscript *: Bronson and Carson (2019) did not distinguish rates for these racial /ethnic groups.

PART III GENDER-BASED ABUSE Chapter 8 Gender-Based Abuse (GBA) Chapter 9 Focusing on Sexual Abuse Chapter 10 Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) and Stalking

8 GENDER-BASED ABUSE (GBA) Gender-based violence is a staggering but normalized global phenomenon, illustrated by the global reach of the #MeToo movement. Gender-based violence and the impacts of trauma enter learning spaces daily, acknowledged or not. Adult learners often respond to learning about gender relations with avoidance, denial, fear, defensiveness and trivialization, all facets of resistance. Britzman1 calls this “difficult knowledge.” Yet, education does reduce gender-based violence. —Lange and Young (2019, p. 301)

1

Britzman (1998) defines “difficult knowledge” as “studying the experiences and the traumatic residuals of genocide, ethnic hatred, aggression, and forms of statesanctioned—and hence legal—social violence [that] requires educators to think carefully about their own theories of learning and how the stuff of such difficult knowledge becomes pedagogical” (p. 117). Chapter 7 documented the historical accounts of women and girls’ victimizations that led to the implementation of Magdalene Houses and similar institutions starting in Europe in the Middle Ages and that spread across much of the Western world in some form (Crowley & Kitchin, 2008; Perry, 1991). Yet, until the second wave of the feminist/women’s movement in the 1970s, victimized women and girls were largely invisible. Most of the types of victimizations discussed in Chapters 8 through 10 have always occurred, yet only since the 1970s and later have they been recognized significant social, legal, and medical problems. For example, the term battered woman did not exist until 1974 (Schechter, 1982, p. 16), sexual harassment was not a labeled behavior until 1975 (L. J. Evans, 1978), date rape was first identified as a problem in the early 1980s (Warshaw & Koss, 1988), and stalking was first defined as a criminal behavior in the 1990s (H. Wallace, 1995). This chapter provides a definition of gender-based abuse (GBA) and a brief history of the recognition and development of GBAs as social problems. The following two chapters will focus more on rape and sexual assault/abuse (Chapter 9) and intimate partner abuse (IPA) and stalking (Chapter 10). There is resistance by some feminist scholars, feminist advocates, and even those who have been abused to use the word victim to describe those (including themselves) who have been sexually abused and/or abused by a current or former intimate partner or date. In brief, the reasoning is that the word victim limits the agency of violated and abused individuals and is associated with powerlessness, and thus the term survivor is preferred. In this and the following chapters the terms victim and survivor will be used interchangeably, given that these individuals have been victimized. Moreover, not all GBA victims survive. At the same time, it is vital to recognize that sexual abuse survivors are not all destined to endless depression and dysfunction. Indeed, the world has always been and is still of full of GBA survivors with subsequent (and/or continued) significant personal, professional, and/or activist (e.g., volunteering, pro bono social justice work, etc.) successes. This is not to say that surviving GBA is simple, or even the same, for everyone. But it happens with great regularity, and I hope the readers, particularly the GBA survivors, do not lose hope and faith in their own and other survivors’ potential for healing and resilience.

DEFINING GENDER-BASED ABUSE (GBA) Violence against women has been called the most common and most invisible human rights violation in the world (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottmoeller, 2002) and “a staggering but normalized global phenomenon” (Lange & Young, 2019, p. 301). The word violence connotes actual physical contact resulting in physical damage. Certainly,

rape and nonsexual physical abuse can be very violent. Importantly, however, much of the gendered abuse is not violent per se. Russell (1984, p. 21) believes that even the term sexual assault is too restrictive because some forms of sexual misconduct (in particular, some instances of child sexual abuse and sexual harassment) are extremely violating but not violent. Thus, Russell (1984) prefers the term sexual exploitation to sexual assault because rape, child sexual assault, and sexual harassment all include abuse of power by the offender over the survivor, whether that power is economic, physical, and/or status in nature and whether or not it is violent. Similarly, as highlighted in more detail in Chapter 10, much of the abuse by intimate partners is not violent yet can be very hurtful and/or frightening. For example, threatening to kill partners, their children, or their animals (pets), or telling partners that they are worthless, bad parents, ugly, and no one loves them, are not physically violent acts, and yet they are typically experienced as being highly abusive and hurtful (Belknap & Potter, 2006). One way of examining the abuse vis-à-vis violence distinction is to recognize that almost all violence is abusive, but abuse is often nonviolent. Figure 8.1 provides a visual of this, although it is impossible to accurately identify, for all types of abuse, what portion is violent. The rare cases where violence would not be considered abuse are when it is used in self-defense.

Figure 8.1 ● Violence as a Portion of Abuse The Development of GBA as a Social Problem and Its Relationship to Depression The term gender-based violence, abbreviated as GBV, has grown in popularity since the mid-1990s (Heise, 1994).2 But even prior to GBV, the term gender-based abuse (GBA) first appeared in scholarly publications, mostly having to do with health care, often regarding women’s higher rates of depression relative to men (Hamilton, Alagna, King, & Lloyd, 1987; Weissman & Klerman, 1979; Weissman & Paykel, 1974). Given the assumption that stress was the primary precursor to depression (Weissman & Paykel, 1974, p. 7), the question was how stress was gendered, which in turn, resulted in depression being gendered (Weissman & Klerman 1979; Weissman & Paykel 1974). A 1979 study concluded that women do not have more stressful lives than men, but depressed women use doctors more for help-seeking, making it appear they are more depressed because they tell doctors, whereas depressed men are more likely to turn to alcohol (Weissman & Klerman, 1979, p. 397). Notably, Walter R. Gove’s early 1970s research,3 which has been confirmed many times since (Leach, Butterworth, Olesen, & Mackinnon, 2013), found that marriage is a protective factor against depression for men, while it is a risk factor for women’s depression.

2

Heise (1994) is the earliest reference to “gender-based violence” that I found, but perhaps there were earlier uses of this term. 3

For example, Gove (Gove, 1972, 1973; Gove & Tudor, 1973) as cited by Weissman and Klerman (1979, p. 407). Although women’s boredom and frustration from gender role restrictions and conflicts certainly contribute their gendered depression, studies on the gendered nature of depression in the 1970s and early 1980s typically omitted or only briefly mentioned GBA, which was just beginning to be recognized as a serious social problem. For example, a 289-paged 1974 book titled The Depressed Woman does not include the terms abuse, rape, or violence in the index and, in the chapter on marital and sexual relationships, only mentions that compared to the “normal” (nondepressed) women, the depressed women “reported frequent tension and overt friction, which ranged from nagging, sarcasm, and arguments to physical violence, in contrast to the normals’ [i.e., nondepressed women’s] relatively smooth relationships” and then only very briefly and vaguely refers to one depressed woman’s violent husband (Weissman & Paykel, 1974, p. 94). Carmen, Russo, and Miller (1981) attributed the gender nature of depression to women’s generally disadvantaged status in marriage, wages, job opportunities, economic independence, limited access to women health professionals, and sexual harassment on the job, but they also criticized the existing studies on gender, stress, and depression for excluding “physical assault, sexual abuse, abortion, [and] incidents of sex discrimination” (Carmen et al., 1981, p. 1322).

The Wide Range of GBAs For the purposes of this book, gender-based abuse (GBA) is the preferred term, consistent with Figure 8.1, and will be used to include gender-based violence (GBV). Regardless of labeling these acts GBA or GBV, they have been used to capture broader-based victimizations of women and girls, both globally and categorically, including physical, sexual, and psychological harms. GBA, then, includes the types of victimizations associated with “violence against women,” such as rape and sexual abuse (including sexual harassment), IPA, and stalking, but it broadens the range of contexts of these abuses. GBA occurs across all geographical regions and societies and times, from hunter-gatherers to industrial and corporate societies (Michalski, 2004, p. 652). GBA is often intrinsically linked to sexuality. The most obvious examples are rape and sexual harassment. GBA, however, also includes victimizations associated with reproductive freedom such as botched legal and illegal abortions, coerced and forced sterilization of women and girls, and coerced and forced pregnancies and births (C. N. Butler, 2015; A. Y. Davis, 1981; L. Gordon, 1976; L. Williams, 1981). GBA is also related to hate crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals. Pharr’s (1997) classic book Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism discusses how much of the anti-gay sentiment and behaviors is about individuals not “doing gender” consistent with traditional, stereotypic gender roles.4 Goldblum and his colleagues’ (2012) study of transgender people defined GBA as experiencing “hostility or insensitivity related to one’s gender identity or expression” (p. 468). Although there has been little effort to track GBA of trans people until recently, one such study found that from 2010 to 2014 “young and Black or Latina transfeminine women” were at the highest risk of homicide victimization in the United States (Dinno, 2017, p. 1441). Global surrogacy industry is an additional example of GBA, whereby a poor woman in another country, such Guatemala or India, is implanted with the fertilized egg of a (usually wealthy and 40 or older aged) couple in a wealthier country, typically the United States (Rotabi & Bromfield, 2012). In some countries this is considered a form of human trafficking (Rotabi & Bromfield, 2012). 4

A second edition of this book was published in 1988. Pharr originated this relationship between sexism and homophobia better and before sociologist Michael Kimmel, who is the scholar primarily cited for it. Notably, Kimmel, after a career being a “male feminist” was accused by many graduate students of sexism and homophobia (Flaherty, 2018).

GBA includes such phenomena as infibulation (forced removal of the labia), clitoridectomy (forced removal of the clitoris), dowry death, honor murders, selective malnourishment, bride burning, female infanticide, daughter neglect, forced prostitution/sex work, human sacrifice, human trafficking (including sex trafficking), and in some cases, pornography (Chapman, 1990; M. R. Decker et al., 2015; Fischbach & Herbert, 1997; Heise, 1994; Heise et al., 2002; Skaff, 2013). Although it is beyond the scope of this book to adequately address all types of GBA, it is important to remember that there is not complete agreement, even among feminists, as to what behaviors constitute GBA. This chapter reports on abuses, and perhaps not everyone would agree that they are all gender-based. As noted in Chapter 1, LGBTQI+ individuals are at significant risk of GBAs and many GBAs can occur to men/boys and be perpetrated by women/girls, but what makes them GBAs is that they are primarily by men and boys against women and girls. Another form of GBA is forced marriage “where duress is used to enact the marriage or to seek consent,” and duress can include “physical, financial, or emotional violence, kidnapping, and threats to harm or kill the victim” (Chantler, 2012, p. 176). Clearly, sex in a forced marriage, then, is rape (Chantler, 2012, p. 176). In Guyana, a common form of GBA is “chopping” or “cutlass” (machete-like knife) attack, whereby a husband or male relatives “slash and dismember body parts” to “punish women who displease men, asserting patriarchal power over a woman’s body” (Chouinard, 2012, p. 784). Another example of GBA is obstetric fistula when it is the result of a forced marriage, particularly those between girls as young as 9 and men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers (see Balogun, 2002; Roka et al., 2013). This is a preventable medical ailment, common in Kenya and Nigeria, where, while giving birth, a girl or woman’s bladder, urethra, or even lower bowel is injured to the level that there is continuous leakage of urine or even feces into her vagina (Balogun, 2002; Roka et al., 2013). Fistula can be deadly, and even the girls and women who survive often face serious health problems (in addition to and as a result of fistula) and extreme societal rejection, which further impacts their own and their infants’ physical and mental well-being and survival (Balogun, 2002). Elder abuse, whether committed by intimate partners, other family members, or service providers, is often considered another type of GBA because it is committed disproportionately against women (Bows, 2017; Burnes, Acierno, & HernandezTejada, 2019). The GBA nature of elder abuse is particularly prevalent regarding older women’s increased risk (relative to older men) of sexual abuse at the hands of caretakers in their homes (including family members) or in assisted living (especially by fellow elder residents) (Fileborn, 2017; Roberto & Teaster, 2005). In a study of older women who presented for a sexual assault exam, 37% reported a service provider as the sexual abuser, 34% reported an acquaintance/or friend abuser, 19% reported a stranger abuser, and 10% reported a current or former intimate partner (M. W. Baker, Sugar, & Eckert, 2009). Child abduction is a type of GBA, as noted in Chapter 4. Walsh and colleagues’ (2016) study showed girls were 64% of the survivors (boys were 36%) and men were more likely abductors in every victim– offender relationship (98% of intimate partner, 95% of stranger, 84% of acquaintances, and 53% of family [usually a parent]) abductions. All intimate partner abduction survivors were of girls. Revenge porn, another form of GBA, is “when someone (commonly an ex-partner) takes a sexual image and distributes it online without the consent of the individual depicted in the image” (Starr & Lavis, 2018, p. 427) The impact on the survivors can be devastating, including difficulties in finding or keeping jobs, stalking (by the original “photographer” or someone who viewed the survivor online), and deep feelings of shame/humiliation, depression, loss of control, anxiety, and betrayal (Bates, 2017; Citron & Franks, 2014). Although most GBAs have existed for centuries, revenge porn is a relatively new phenomenon made available by the ease with which mobile phones have come to be used to take photos and videos, easily passed along, including on websites. A recent study found that many states have criminalized revenge porn and that women support its criminalization more than men, unless the posting was of a “selfie”—suggesting “that women expressing their sexuality are deemed less deserving of protection” (Lageson, McElrath, & Palmer, 2019, p. 560).

This chapter will identify some of the dynamics and history of GBA and then end with a summary of some additional GBAs: (human and sex) trafficking and examples of some corporate and environmental/green GBAs. But first we will examine GBAs through lenses of inequality, fear, and intersectionality.

CULTURE, GENDER INEQUALITY, AND GBA The Significance of a Sexist Culture Gender role stereotyping begins even before birth. Not only do the names parents choose for their children often differ depending on the child’s sex, but frequently parents’ expectations of that child depend on the child’s sex. Both threatened and actual GBA can define and limit women and girls’ “place” in society, restricting the freedom and quality of women and girls’ lives. The abuse of women by their husbands or boyfriends can keep women under the control of men. Whether physical, sexual, emotional, or threatened, GBA usually simultaneously increases abusers’ and decreases survivors’ control and power. Recall from Chapter 1, Kupers’s (2005, p. 716) definition of toxic masculinity as “those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination,” and Posadas’s (2017, p. 178) definition of rape culture as “the mechanism that channels toxic masculinity into specific, socially legitimized practices of sexual violence.” These gender socializations “prepare” girls and women to be victims and boys and men to be perpetrators of GBA. Girls are often rewarded for passivity and feminine behavior, whereas boys are often rewarded for aggressiveness and masculine behavior. Although there are increasingly examples of strong female characters in the world and media, gender stereotypes are still often reaffirmed with an abundance of violent, controlling male characters and sexualized and disempowered female characters. Madriz (1997) provides convincing documentation of the gender socialization conditioning as it relates to GBA, starting with childhood fairy tales (such as Little Red Riding Hood), which teach us to fear predatory men but to rely on good men to save us from the predatory men. Women and girls’ conditioning to fear GBA can emanate from parents, siblings, teachers, the numerous media depictions instilling fear, and other sources. The media depictions range from television news magazines that often sensationalize rapists, stalkers, and intimate partner abusers, to MTV videos and slasher films that eroticize male violence against women and girls, or at least use it as entertainment value. To compound this problem of raising girls to be afraid, when women and girls fail to follow the socially prescribed roles (e.g., by going out alone, drinking alcohol, or wearing certain clothes), they are often blamed by their families, the police, the courts, and others for their victimizations (addressed further in the following section). Unfortunately, many current media venues routinely support rape myths, and in some cases this has gotten worse over time. O’Hara’s (2012) detailed analysis of U.S. newspaper articles found repeated representations and affirmations of rape myths, including the following: Rape is rare (not a societal problem), rape is trivial, rapists are sociopaths, and rape survivors are partly or fully responsible for their victimizations, especially when they drink. Tranchese’s (2018) similar study of the representation of rape in the United Kingdom press found the mainstream journalism “reflects and reinforces dominant stereotypical understandings of rape rooted in patriarchal conceptualisations of gender roles and sexualities” (p. 174). Moreover, a Flemish study found an increase in sexual violence on prime-time television over time; it also found that watching more crime dramas that include sexual violence heightens women’s fear of rape (Custers & Van den Bulck, 2013) and perhaps consciously or unconsciously eroticize rape and encourage viewers to perceive rape as somewhat normal or expected. A study of over a thousand covers of the Rolling Stone magazine from 1967 to 2009 found that compared with men on the cover, the representations of women were not only increasingly sexualized, but they were sexualized far more intensely (hypersexualized) than the men (Hatton & Trautner, 2013). Moreover, this intensified representation of hypersexualizing women on the covers coincided with women musicians’ increased success over time, suggesting

that the intensified sexualization and hypersexualization (e.g., showing or implying sex acts) of women on the Rolling Stone covers is a backlash against women musicians’ professional accomplishments (Hatton & Trautner, 2013). Women musicians’ percentage of number-one hits increased from 18.5% in the 1960s (when their cover images were never hypersexualized), to 50% in the 2000s, yet women were still only 16% of those on the cover of the Rolling Stone in the 2000s (Hatton & Trautner, 2013, pp. 72–73). Thus, women musicians’ percentage of number-one hit songs increased while their representation on the covers stayed stagnant, and when portrayed on covers they were increasingly hypersexualized.

The Culture of Victim-Blaming and GBA The “just world belief,” developed by Melvin J. Lerner, “states that people have a need to believe that their environment is a just and orderly place where people usually get what they deserve” (Lerner & Miller, 1978, p. 1030). The just world belief is useful to understand the human tendency to blame survivors, particularly some types of survivors. Perhaps nowhere is this victim-blaming more prevalent than for some types of GBA, particularly rape and other sexual abuses (Angelone, Mitchell, & Lucente, 2012; Bal & van den Bos, 2012; R. M. Hayes, Lorenz, & Bell, 2013; A. K. Miller et al., 2012; J. D. Murray, Spadafore, & McIntosh, 2005) and IPA (Keeling & van Wormer, 2012; Martín-Fernández, Gracia, & Lila, 2018). A study of college students found that adherence to rape myths was gendered (men were more supportive of them than women) and that an inverse relationship exists between rape myth acceptance and just world beliefs (R. M. Hayes et al., 2013). There is also evidence that victim-blaming is prevalent among women survivors of stalking (Lambert, Smith, Geistman, Cluse-Tolar, & Jiang, 2013). But even in terms of various types of rape and other sexual abuses and IPA, victim-blaming is especially likely for women and girls who do not follow society’s traditional gender scripts, such as those who drink alcohol (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2001; Grubb & Turner, 2012) and/or who are sex workers (M. R. Decker et al., 2015; Karandikar & Gezinski, 2012). A recent study of front-page U.S. crime stories found that White women and girls not only had more new coverage, but the stories were more sympathetic compared with stories about African American and Latinx women and girls; the latter were more often “portrayed as risk-takers and ‘bad’ women, and their victimization was normalized through descriptions of their unsafe environments,” such as urban centers or where there was a gang fight—racialized and classed overtones of where they lived (Slakoff & Brennan, 2019, p. 488). Similarly, in northern British Columbia, Canada, where hitchhiking “is particularly common among Indigenous women,” it has been labeled as “bad mobility” and “risky behavior” in a manner that is “deeply gendered and racialized” and framed to victim-blame the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls who hitchhiked (K. A. Morton, 2016, p. 299). Many rape myths that receive considerable societal adherence are victim-blaming, such as women and girls who dress a certain way, drink alcohol/use drugs, flirt, stay out late at night, have consensual sex, and so on, deserve it when they are raped (Cohn, Dupuis, & Brown, 2009; Franiuk, Seefelt, & Vandello, 2008). Importantly, some rape myths are entangled in racism (Bryant-Davis, Chung, & Tillman, 2009; Tillman, Bryant-Davis, Smith, & Marks, 2010). “This significant adherence to rape myths by the public, media, jurors, and the criminal legal system makes it practically impossible to unravel the highly layered ‘truth’ about false rape allegations, and poses real, negative impacts for victims, who are all too often assumed to be making false reports” (Belknap, 2010b, p. 1336). An analysis of mainstream comic books found a number of rape myths portrayed that contribute to a rape culture such as blaming rape survivors who do not fight back, girls going out alone at night, and girls who are “typically characterized as violent, unquestionably non-consensual, or a result of mind control” where “mind control” is coercing women “to have sex against their will” (Garland, Branch, & Grimes, 2016, p. 59). Recall Glick and Fiske’s (2001) distinction between benevolent sexism and hostile sexism reported in Chapters 1 and 7. In earlier research these authors found that men with higher levels of hostile sexism were more likely to adhere to rape myths,

including that survivors are responsible for their own rapes (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Grubb and Turner (2012) postulate that this could be because “women who challenge or go against the expectations of benevolent sexism will no longer be considered worthy of protection by men” (p. 447). Research on the gendered levels of victimblaming in GBA victimizations usually find that men are more likely than women to blame the survivors of rape, IPA, and stalking (Grubb & Turner, 2012; R. M. Hayes et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2013), although sometimes there are no gender differences (Strömwall, Alfredsson, & Strömwall, 2013). Notably, some studies find that “gender role attitudes” are a better predictor of victim-blaming than gender, indicating beliefs about gender roles, not whether one is a man or woman, predicts GBA victimblaming (but women tend to have more progressive attitudes about gender roles) (Angelone et al., 2012; Grubb & Turner, 2012). Similarly, a self-report study found that men with heavy drinking episodes were more likely to be sexually abusive/aggressive toward their intimate partners, but this was only true among men who also endorsed high levels of hostile sexism (and not the case for men who endorsed benevolent sexism and drank significant amounts) (Lisco, Parrott, & Tharp, 2012). The just world belief not only results in the assumption that only certain types of people can be victimized but also serves as a way for people to deceive themselves that they (and often, their families) are free from victimization because of who they are and how they behave. This is not the case—anyone can be a victim. Studies of rape and IPA survivors have a difficult time determining who is most at risk because the focus of research has often been on what is unusual about the survivors rather than what it is about offenders that makes them likely to rape (anyone) and/or abuse their partners. One study found that people who are more focused on the future than the present and believe that their efforts toward the future will pay off, are less tolerant of personal uncertainty in general and are more likely to blame survivors (adhere to the just world belief), including rape survivors (Bal & van den Bos, 2012). What throws much of the victim-blaming into a spin is recognizing that most GBA is committed by men who know the women/girls they abuse; in many cases, these women are their wives and girlfriends (National Victim Center, 1992; Russell, 1984). People are more likely to blame women/girls for their GBA victimizations when their perpetrators are known individuals, most often boyfriends and husbands. Reliable studies show women/girls are more at risk of rape when they are drinking, and they are often blamed if they drank before they were raped. Media coverage leading up to Washington State’s 1990 law on “sexual predators” focused on predators as sick strangers, ignoring the far greater sexual predator threat to children and women by men in their own families (Websdale, 1996). Survivors often perceive quite accurately that their abusers are acting with the tacit permission, if not active complicity, of family, friends, church, or community. Moreover, any illusions a survivor might have entertained about her status relative to the offender are most convincingly dispelled by the crime itself. By their nature, these crimes are displays of raw power, intended to subordinate the survivor and to teach her to know her place. Unlike property crimes, they result in no obvious material gain for the perpetrator; rather, their goal is to gain or maintain dominance over the survivor. The perpetrator seeks to establish his dominance not only by terrorizing the survivor but also, often most effectively, by shaming her. (Herman, 2005, p. 572) Victim-blaming for the IPA survivor usually comes in the form of the question, “Why does she stay with him?” The implication is that if she does not want to be abused, she should leave her partner. This view ignores the fact that many women do leave, but we rarely hear about them. Blaming IPA survivors for staying also ignores the economic dependence many women and their children have on the abusers and the often-realistic fear that many IPA survivors have of being financially destitute and/or further victimized—even killed by their abusers—if they leave. There are also the issues of family, friends, and criminal legal system workers who ignore IPA or even encourage the survivor to try to work things out. Blaming survivors diverts the focus from the real problem: the offenders.

The Relationship Between Gender Inequality and GBA Brownmiller’s book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, received a great deal of attention when it was published in 1975, resulting in a significant impact on the discourse of rape. As well as enlightening its many readers on the history and terror of rape, Against Our Will exposed the anger many women feel about living in a culture where rape is minimized, ignored, tolerated, and joked about (what we now call a rape culture). Against Our Will was a path-breaking book and the first widely read feminist analysis of rape. A controversial contention in Against Our Will is the statement that rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 5). Whereas Brownmiller views rape as causing gender inequality, other feminist scholars view it the opposite direction, that gender power disparity is the cause of rape (Russell, 1984, p. 153; Visano, 2002, p. 52). Brownmiller’s (1975) assertion that all men benefit from rape is more understandable when one recognizes that it is not necessary for all men to victimize all women for most women to be afraid of rape. The fact that some men commit a significant number of rapes serves to control many women and girls’ lives through at least some degree of fear. Although Against Our Will made many contributions to identifying rape as a serious social problem, women of Color scholars identified its serious racist tropes (A. Y. Davis, 1981; Tong, 1984; L. Williams, 1981). L. Williams’s (1981) classic article, “Violence Against Women,” in The Black Scholar, reported, “Brownmiller feeds historical myths about black men’s propensity to rape, and criticizes left and progressive participation in the fight against trumped-up rape charges” (p. 21). The legacy of these myths will be addressed later in this chapter. Gender socialization is related to gender equality, in that it emphasizes the “view that women are vulnerable and should be cautious, whereas men are strong and should be fearless,” and thus dominates “how women and men talk about and manage fear and victimization in public spaces” (van Eijk, 2017, p. 103). Gender inequality is (1) often heightened during conflict and wars (Buvinic, Gupta, Casabonne, & Verwimp, 2013; Skaff, 2013); (2) not limited to physical power (e.g., includes economic, political, educational, and social status) (Buvinic et al., 2013; Mršević & Hughes, 1997; Nikolic-Ristanovic, 1999); and (3) a risk factor for increased GBA (Mršević & Hughes, 1997; Nikolic-Ristanovic, 1999). Internal civil wars have been prevalent in the past half century in over half of all nations, and “once wars begin, they are ‘development in reverse,’” by destroying human capital, decline of financial capital, departing skilled workers, diverting public expenditures to the military, and disrupting service delivery, market functioning, and transportation (Buvinic et al., 2013, p. 112). A World Bank global study distinguished between the first- and second-round impacts of civil wars (Buvinic et al., 2013). The first-round direct impacts are extreme death of men and boys as a result of violent conflict, which results in the indirect impacts of gender inequality derived from widespread widowhood. Women’s widowhood is a profound risk factor for women and girls’ risk of rape and other GBAs, income and asset loss, migration and forced displacement (Buvinic et al., 2013, p. 115). In Bosnia and Rwanda, wartime rape was used “for ethnic cleansing,” whereas in most other countries GBA followed the killing of men and the resulting widowhood was “often committed by relatives instead of strangers” (Buvinic et al., 2013, p. 120). The second round of impacts from wars includes even further exacerbation of gender inequalities caused by first impacts, particularly “by altering the landscape of opportunities available to women,” resulting in long-term poverty, increases in dowry costs (with the surplus of women relative to men), and possible increase in the likelihood of men marrying numerous wives (Buvinic et al., 2013, pp. 124–125). Obviously, gender inequality is not restricted to civil war–torn countries, nor is its impact on GBA. Studies comparing U.S. cities report an inverse relationship between gender power inequality (e.g., the economic, political, educational, and legal status levels) and the rape rate (Baron & Straus, 1989; Whaley, 2001), and gender power inequality and the rate of IPA (M. Xie, Heimer, K., & Lauritsen, 2012). In sum, higher gender inequality, whether caused by war or not, is associated with higher GBA.

Description

Figure 8.2 ● Cycle of Gender-Based Abuse and Gender Inequality The studies just reviewed focus on aggregate data, comparing countries or cities to each other and/or over time. Individual-level data also provide powerful relationships between gender inequality and gender-based victimization. The verbal and psychological abuses of women abused by current or former intimate partners exemplify this: Battered women consistently complain of degrading verbal abuse: You can’t do anything right; How could I have ever married a pig like you! Verbal assaults, like physical ones, may go on for hours in a relentless attack on a woman’s sense of dignity and self-worth and almost always include threats: I’ll cut your throat from one end to another; If you try to leave me, you’re dead. (Schechter 1982, p. 17) In addition to recognizing the aggregate and individual-level data connecting gender inequality and GBA, it is likely that Brownmiller was correct in claiming GBA (in her book, rape) causes gender inequality, but feminists who hypothesized this relationship in the opposite direction (gender inequality increases the likelihood of rape rape) are also likely correct. That is, as portrayed in Figure 8.2, gender inequality and GBA reinforce each other. It is also necessary to see this intersectionally, as GBA and gender equality vary across individuals based on such other important characteristics as race, class, sexuality, (dis)ability, and so on. For example, Indigenous scholar Deer (2015) identifies rape and colonialism as intrinsically reinforcing each other. Recent research, analyzing the International Dating Violence Study data of almost 10,000 women from 29 countries, found “that while controlling for other risk factors, gender inequality is significantly associated with the increased odds of having experienced severe, but not minor, forms of IPSV [intimate partner sexual violence]” (LeSuer, 2020, p. 97). J. K. Campbell and her colleagues’ (2019) study of the relationships between states’ gender inequality and U.S. homicides from 2000 to 2017 concluded that “promoting gender equity at the state level” could reduce homicide rates, given that higher gender inequality is associated with overall, intimate partner, female, male, and firearm perpetrated homicides (p. 211).

RATES OF GBA AND THE FEAR OF CRIME Those who commit GBAs often commit more than one type, and they do so frequently against many victims. Survivors of GBA have often survived more than one type of GBA and/or the same type of GBA from more than one abuser. Research consistently indicates that, in general, men are more likely than women to be survivors of crime (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Catalano, 2011; L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979; Lauritsen & Heimer, 2008; Miethe, Stafford, & Long, 1987), but relative to men, women are more afraid of crime (Braungart et al., 1980; Clemente & Kleiman, 1976; T. C. LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989; J. Lane & Fox, 2013; Lorenc et al., 2013; Ortega & Myles, 1987; Rader, May, & Goodrum, 2007; Snedker, 2012). Some criminologists have suggested that women’s disproportionate fear of crime is irrational; Warr (1984) labeled this phenomenon “the paradox of fear.”5 V. D. Young (1992) documented how this was neither a “paradox” nor “irrational,” but rather was due to researchers’ unwillingness to accept women’s elevated fear levels as realistic assessments of risk for GBA victimizations, particularly in light of the fact that these victimizations have often remained invisible, unreported, or ignored when reported. Victimization studies, primarily with the National Crime Victimization Survey, have routinely reported the highly gendered rape/sexual assault victimizations (Baum & Klaus, 2005; Catalano, 2011; Lauritsen & Heimer, 2008), which were often ignored in the “paradox” and “women are irrational” studies. 5

Warr (1984) also included the elderly in the paradox as they, too, had lower victimization rates than their younger counterparts but had a higher fear of crime. J. Lane and Fox (2013, pp. 472–473) identify four theoretical approaches that have been used to account for gender differences in fear of crime: (1) physical vulnerability in that women are typically smaller than men; (2) gender socialization for women to be weak and acquiescent and men to be dominant and tough; (3) patriarchy (consistent with Brownmiller’s [1975] claim reported that men use rape and the threat of rape to control women); and (4) the shadow of sexual assault. Physical vulnerability is self-explanatory, and the previous section addressed both gender socialization and Brownmiller’s (1975) contention of the role of rape in patriarchy. J. Lane and Fox (2013) attribute the shadow of sexual assault theoretical approach to understanding women’s higher levels of fear of crime to Ferraro (1995, 1996) “who argued that women are more afraid of crime generally because they are particularly afraid of sexual assault and the likely physical and emotional consequences that they would face if they were raped” (Fox, 2013, p. 473). With the exception of murder, rape is the most fear-inducing crime (Brodyaga, 1975). The next two chapters will address the rates of the more commonly publicly acknowledged forms of GBA: rape, IPA, and stalking. The nature of GBA is such that regardless of the survivors’ gender, these crimes unduly stigmatize the survivors and the survivors are often reluctant to report GBA to researchers or to the police due to reasons such as it feels too personal to discuss, embarrassment or shame, fear of reprisal by the abuser, or repression due to the trauma (Madriz, 1997; Riger & Gordon, 1981; M. D. Smith, 1994; Stanko, 1993; V. D. Young, 1992). A New Orleans study found no gender difference in the fear of burglary, men reported greater fear than women of robbery, and women reported far more fear of sexual assault victimization than men (Reid & Konrad, 2004). The researchers in this study point out that men’s greater fear of robbery than women is likely due to men participating in more risk-taking behaviors making them vulnerable to robbery, such as walking alone (Reid & Konrad, 2004). Cobbina, Miller, and Brunson’s (2008) study of African American youths in St. Louis found that 68% of boys and 57% of girls had been jumped or beaten up, 16% of the boys and 3% of the girls had been shot, 70% of the boys and 60% of the girls had witnessed someone being shot, 65% of boys and 14% of girls had been robbed, 54% of the girls had been sexually assaulted or abused, and 31% of girls had been sexually assaulted numerous times. The boys’ fear of crime resulted in them

staying within the boundaries of their own neighborhoods, not engaging in activities that might lead to retaliatory violence, and traveling in groups or with weapons. In contrast, two themes ran through young women’s accounts: avoiding public neighborhood spaces, altogether and especially at night, and relying on the company of others (especially males) for protection, including drawing security from the belief that having neighborhood networks of family and friends would ensure their safety. (Cobbina et al., 2008, p. 695) In addition, the young women were more likely than the young men to find “a sense of security from the police in their communities” (Cobbina et al., 2008, p. 695). Thus, this study of youths of the same age and race found some gender differences and similarities in victimizations and how fear of crime restricted their lives. Cobbina and colleagues’ (2008) St. Louis study and Snedker’s (2012) New York City studies found additional gender nuances. Snedker’s New York City study found that across gender, older people, people smaller in stature, people with physical disabilities, and women who had children were more afraid of crime (than women without children and all men), whereas men’s fear of crime was more a result of the neighborhood they inhabited. Additionally, fit young women perceived themselves as less vulnerable than most. Stranger rape was the assumed victim–offender relationship, and men did not report fear of being raped themselves but worried about their wives and girlfriends’ risk of rape. Similarly, a study of same- and different-sex intimate couples found for both women and men, having a woman partner inspired more fear of crime (for the partner), and the authors reported more support for the “physical vulnerability” and “shadow of sexual assault” explanations of gender differences in fear of crime than in the “gender socialization” approach (Drakulich & Rose, 2013). Even more gender nuances found in both Cobbina and colleagues’ (2008) St. Louis and Snedker’s (2012) NYC studies was that women, particularly young women, reported significantly more GBA in terms of unsolicited, intrusive, threatening, degrading, and sexual remarks when they are in public places such as city streets (Cobbina et al., 2008; Snedker, 2012). The NYC study did not find these increased verbal harassments and threats were related to women’s increased fear of rape (Snedker, 2012); however, the St. Louis study reported that young women’s exceptional risk of street sexual harassment and threats indicated their higher risk of rape (Cobbina et al., 2008). Finally, in addition to women and girls’ fear posed by the threat of GBA in their daily lives, it is also necessary to acknowledge anger (e.g., Madriz, 1997). A survey study found men’s fear of murder is important in explaining their fears of robbery and aggravated assault, and their fear of sexual assault is almost as important as their fear of murder in terms of a home break-in (Riggs & Cook, 2015, p. 2384). “Similarly, for women, fear of sexual assault and fear of murder both are significant factors associated with fear of violent crime, and differences between the levels of significance are marginal” (Riggs & Cook, 2015, p. 2384).

FOCUSING ON INTERSECTIONAL GBA: THE HISTORY AND ITS LEGACY The origins and legacies of U.S. racism and U.S. rape laws are unquestionably inseparable (J. R. Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1983, p. 110). “Racial constructs of Blacks and Native Americans were used to justify slavery and colonization. These women … were stigmatized as jezebels with an insatiable appetite for sex” (C. N. Butler, 2015, p. 1469). Stereotypes of Asian women are still in effect from them being “trafficked from Asia to California specifically to serve as prostitutes for the male gold mining community,” and Latinas “have often been sexually exploited and forced into prostitution” (C. N. Butler, 2015, p. 1480). In the late 1800s, African American activist Ida B. Wells publicized the focus of accusing African American men/boys of raping White women/girls, whereas the rape

of African American women/girls by White men/boys was overlooked (Giddings, 1984). Two books provide a profound understanding of rape after the Civil War. Freedman’s (2013) book Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation provides a detailed historical account of the ways that the legal definition of rape was closely tied to the intersections of gender, race, and (hetero)sexuality in the United States. A review of this book summarized it as documenting how “legal definitions of rape allowed white men to maintain their sexual and political power while also serving to restrict access to the full rights of citizenship to others” (Jacquet, 2016, p. 1000). McGuire’s (2011) powerful book At the Dark End of the Street carefully documents the tactic of White men raping African American women during the U.S. civil rights movement and these survivors’ resistance, which included Rosa Parks as an advocate. While slave owners and other White men freely raped African American women, death was the punishment for an African American man convicted of raping a White woman (J. R. Schwendinger & Schwendinger 1983, p. 108) and such cases were predominantly untrue as noted earlier in this book (A. Y. Davis, 1981; Odem, 1995; Freedman, 2013). Indeed, because most slave codes did not recognize the rape of African American women, there was no punishment for enslaved, free, or White men who did so (P. C. Johnson, 2003). Even the laws well into the 20th century stated that women who worked outside the home or whose race had a history of sexual exploitation were outside the realm of “womanhood” and its prerogative (Giddings, 1984, p. 49). Thus, the law implied that African American women/girls were not legally capable of being raped. Moreover, rape laws were originally mandated to protect upper-class White men, whose wives and daughters could be assaulted (A. Y. Davis, 1981). African American women have been particularly vulnerable to sexual assault by White men during and after slavery (C. N. Butler, 2015; Cardyn, 2002; D. Davis, 1994; Giddings, 1984; Tillman et al., 2010) and have continued to struggle to be viewed as legitimate survivors of GBA, even when they are victimized by African American men (C. N. Butler, 2015; Pierce-Baker, 1998; H. Potter, 2008; Tillman et al., 2010). As stated previously, there is an extraordinarily strong relationship between equality and the risk of GBA victimizations: In general, increasing oppression/marginalization is correlated with a higher risk of GBA victimization. This will be addressed in the following chapters in more depth, but a vast amount of research documents disproportionate risk of GBA among women and girls of Color (relative to White women/girls) (Cardyn, 2002; S. K. Cho, 1997; Deer, 2015; DeFour, 1990; Lucashenko, 1996; H. Potter, 2008; L. Williams, 1981). In addition, there is growing research on the victimization risks of women and girls with (dis)abilities relative to women/girls without (dis)abilities (Chouinard, 2012; Gilson, DePoy, & Cramer, 2001; Malacrida, 2006; S. L. Martin et al., 2006; Plummer & Findley, 2012); LGBTQI+ individuals relative to cisgender individuals (Belknap, Holsinger, et al., 2012); and immigrant women/girls, particularly those of Color, relative to nonimmigrant women/girls (Abraham, 2000; Adames & Campbell, 2005; Bui, 2004; Erez & Bach, 2003; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Villalón, 2010). The following are some research findings from the 1980s and 1990s: African American women experienced disproportionate “medical abuse, from involuntary sterilization to hospital shutdowns; assault and murder by police and by organized racists such as the Ku Klux Klansmen; political terror such as the brutalization of black liberation activist Assata Shakur; and the sexist media images which portray Third World women as exotic sex tigresses.” (L. Williams, 1981, p. 18) A study of New York City homeless women found that women of Color were more victimized overall—and raped in particular—than were White women. (Coston, 1992) An Australian study found that Black/Aboriginal women were at increased risk of male violence, yet they are silenced, and their victimizations are too often invisible. (Lucashenko, 1996)

U.S. studies documented that among both college students (S. K. Cho, 1997; DeFour, 1990) and women in the workplace (Ontiveros, 1993), women of Color experience disproportionate sexual harassment that often also includes racist harassment. These studies indicate that not simply the-more-oppressed-the-more-GBAvictimization risk, but also the more oppressed/marginalized groups of which one is a member, the higher the risk of GBA. N. T. Buchanan and Ormerod (2002, p. 114) coined the term racialized sexual harassment as a distinct construct from racial and sexual harassment in their study of highly educated African American women. An example of this was White coworkers asking sexually explicit questions, reflecting an underlying assumption that African American women’s sexual boundaries, both the behaviors they will engage in and their comfort in discussing sex, are looser than those of White women. Another example was White coworkers making comments about African American women’s clothing, implying that they look like sex workers or that their clothes are exotic or offensive. J. P. Barnett (2017, p. 1210) coined the term intersectional harassment regarding “the intersectional nature of harassment and its function within systems of domination” (p. 1210). Specifically, her research on adults on the autism spectrum demonstrated “the intersections of gender, sexuality and (dis)ability on the construction of deviant embodiments as targets for harassment” and how this shaped these harassment survivors’ making “sense of these experiences of violence” (p. 1210). Similarly, Tester’s (2008) study of sexual harassment in housing documented “the intersections of race, gender, and class in shaping this harassment. Landlords used their institutional authority in the housing context and racialized gender stereotypes to exploit tenants’ economic vulnerabilities and sexually coerce them” and “to defend themselves against complaints of harassment” (p. 349). GBA research needs to assess, as much as possible, the various intersecting oppressions of individuals, to better document how these intersections are related to the frequencies of GBA and the dynamics of GBA offenses regarding perpetrators actions, survivors’ responses, and responses by the criminal legal system (CLS). African American boys/men, the guilty and innocent alike, have been indiscriminately brought through the CLS on rape charges (C. N. Butler, 2015; A. Y. Davis, 1981; A. Walsh, 1987) and IPA (Gruber, 2012). When reporting GBA by an African American man, many African American women struggle with the reality that “the most obvious and long-standing label for the black man in United States society is ‘perpetrator’” (Pierce-Baker, 1998, p. 219), and when the focus is on Black men/boys as the rapists and White women/girls as the victims, White men rapists are not held as culpable and Black women/girl victims do not exist or do not matter (Dorr, 2004; Pierce-Baker, 1998). Related to this is the expectation for African American women, even when they are GBA victimized, to be “strong Black women” (Donovan & Williams, 2002; H. Potter, 2008). Perhaps this is why one study found White women far more likely than women of Color to engage in more advanced help-seeking behaviors, such as police reporting, asking for help from family and friends, and seeking help from psychiatrists and social service agencies (Kaukinen, 2004). Women/girls whose GBA victimizations are made invisible, despite having higher risks of surviving them (e.g., women of Color, (dis)abled women/girls, poor women/girls, and LGBTQI+ women/girls), also tend to have even worse experiences in the CLS, in the rare event their cases are reported and processed. For example, bias or hate crimes “motivated by both sexual orientation and gender identity show a high frequency … of physical violence committed by groups of strangers in public places” (Stotzer, 2014, p. 59). The CLS and society tend to minimize GBA, and this is particularly true if the survivors are of Color and/or poor. There is a significant need for progressives to join forces in fighting both racism and violence against women (J. P. Barnett, 2017; Donovan & Williams, 2002; Matthews, 1993; Pierce-Baker, 1998; Tong, 1984).

TRAFFICKING

One type of GBA, human trafficking, “occurs in almost every part of the world” (Demir & Finckenauer, 2010, p. 57) and is one of the most serious human rights violations and fastest growing industries in the world (Choo, Jang, & Choi, 2010; De León, 2010). Figure 8.3 shows Logan, Walker, and Hunt’s (2009) definitions of human and sex trafficking and explains some of the myths surrounding them. Clearly, a problem with recognizing the prevalence of trafficking is the invisibility of most of the survivors (Yokoyama, 2010). Worldwide, women and men migrate at similar rates, but women and children are the most impacted by displacement due to wars and human trafficking (Adanu & Johnson, 2009). “Women are doubly disadvantaged because they are discriminated against as women and as migrants” and are highly vulnerable to sexual and physical abuse (Adanu & Johnson, 2009, p. 179). A legal analysis of U.S. immigration laws and policies claims they “unintentionally” assist the traffickers’ “control over victims once those victims are in the United States” (Chacon, 2010, p. 1612). Undocumented immigrants “are more vulnerable to threats because they know that efforts to seek legal recourse can result in protracted immigration detention, criminal prosecution, and, of course, removal” (Chacon, 2010, p. 1612). This results in many undocumented immigrant survivors of trafficking in the United States in a “legal limbo” and understandably reluctant to report their victimizations (Chacon, 2010, p. 1612).

Figure 8.3 ● Logan, Walker, and Hunt’s Definitions of Human and Sex Trafficking and the Myths Surrounding Them Source: Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Hunt, G. (2009). Understanding human trafficking in the United States. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(1), 3–30. Note: Logan and colleagues relied on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 for the definition of human trafficking.

It is crucial to understand the differences between international and domestic sex trafficking. The popular vision of sex trafficked victims is “women and children from distant locales coerced, lied to, and abducted; then sold into sex slavery all over the world without the knowledge or resources to escape” (Connell et al., 2015, p. 351). Although this represents some sex trafficking victims, it ignores “the very real plight of women and children who are [from the United States] and exploited in the U.S.” (Connell et al., 2015, p. 351). It is also necessary to learn that sex trafficking victims, whether international or domestic, are typically criminalized by the CLS upon contact.

Of the “tens of thousands of known sex trafficking victims currently living in the United States,” many “are only identified once they have come into contact with law enforcement, usually in the form of arrest,” where they “stand the risk of being victimized by both the sex trafficking industry and the criminal justice system” (Connell et al., 2015, p. 351). C. N. Butler (2015) effectively argues that prostitution and sex trafficking policymakers “have ignored the connection between race and other root factors that push people of color into America’s commercial sex trade” (p. 1464). Balgamwalla (2016) adds that the anti-trafficking laws and their enforcement reflect the trafficking “victims,” “offenders,” and “rescuers’” roles making “racialized and gendered assumptions about trafficking” (p. 1). C. N. Butler (2015) agrees, noting “today’s antitrafficking movement has failed to understand and address the racial contours of domestic sex trafficking in the United States and even perpetuates the racial myths that undermine the proper identification of minority youth as sex trafficking victims” (p. 1464). The term White slavery is racist given that it assumes “racialized notions of who can be identified as a victim of exploitation” (C. N. Butler, 2015, p. 1490; see also Bravo, 2011; Balgamwalla, 2016). The Tracking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), part of the 2000 Violence Against Women Act, was the first “comprehensive federal antitrafficking legislation in the U.S.” (Balgamwalla, 2016, p. 10). Unfortunately, the TVPA’s provisions focus on criminalization, which “places trafficked individuals at the risk of arrest, prosecution, and deportation” (Balgamwalla, 2016, p. 12). A recent study of Latinx sex trafficking found the TVPA’s restriction to “severe forms of trafficking” fails to account for “the plurality of lived experiences in which agency and choice can be mitigated by social forces, structural violence, intersectional vulnerabilities, and the actions of others” (Sabon, 2018, p. 456).

CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL GBA Breast Implant GBA Another gendered form of victimization that is rarely recognized is “corporate” or “organizational” victimization, much of which have to do with birth control, tampons, and breast implants (M. Dodge, 2009). This GBA is perhaps most frequently and poignantly seen in the breast implant and egg harvesting markets. Breast implants were first sold in the 1960s without any required studies about their safety until 1976, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed the implant manufacturers 15 years, until 1991, to conduct research on their safety. By many accounts, adequate safety testing was not completed by 1991, there were still “suspected risks” yet the overseeing committee did not end or restrict silicone implants “because they were a public health necessity both after cancer surgery and simply to enlarge breasts” (Rynbrandt & Kramer, 1995, p. 209). In 1992, Dow Corning released documents indicating that they had known for more than two decades “that the implants could leak and that the gel could cause health problems” (Rynbrandt & Kramer, 1995, p. 212). In March 1994, implant manufacturers agreed to a $4 billion class action settlement, made possible by the press and individual women banding together to sue these corporations in civil court. Due to safety concerns, in 1992, the FDA disallowed silicone gel breast implants for cosmetic use, while allowing them for breast cancer patients (Balk, Earley, Avendano, & Raman, 2016, p. 164). Seemingly, the FDA decided it was better for women with breast cancer to have potentially unsafe breast implants than no breasts. Silicone implants were allowed again in 2006, and 87% of 2017 U.S. breast implant surgeries were silicone gel (American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2018). Notably, all breast implants have silicone covers (regardless of whether they are filled with saline or silicone gel). Most breast implants are in young women and women with breast cancer, indicating the need for studies on the “long term exposure to these devices” (Hopper et al., 2017, p. 185). Yet, a recent publication is critical of the quality check for criteria used by breast implant manufacturers in their reports, the missing demand for peer-reviewed publications on breast implant safety, the lack of well-defined and mandatory assessments, and many of these reports’ unavailability to health care professionals or the public (Rakhorst et al., 2017). Astonishingly, despite the 2006

FDA directive to carefully study the safety of silicone gel implants, most studies do not distinguish between silicone and saline implants (Balk et al., 2016, p. 172). Moreover, published breast implant safety evaluations in medical journals are often written by researchers paid by breast implant corporations, such as Allergan, Sientra, and Mentor (M. C. Edwards, 2018; W. G. Stevens et al., 2018), a clear ethical violation. Even these potentially biased reports, including the annual reports by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, suggest continuing safety problems, as do the reports that are not authored by breast implant associates and surgeons (Calobrace et al., 2018; Rakhorst et al., 2017). Capsular contracture, often painful, where breast tissue grows around the implant contracting the breast, is the most common complication from breast implants (Dancey, Nassimizadeh, & Levick, 2012; Hopper et al., 2017) and appears to be less common with the newer textured (as opposed to smooth) silicone implants (Calobrace et al., 2018). Although extremely rare, an association with anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a very rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is one of the most serious complications associated with breast implants (Calobrace et al., 2018; Hopper et al., 2017). The new textured implants appear to have a lower risk of capsular contracture; however, they may have a higher rate of BIA-ALCL (Calobrace et al., 2018, p. 42). Calobrace and colleagues’ (2018) report on the 10-year core studies, mandated by the FDA, of silicone implants made by the three main manufacturers (Mentor, Sientra, and Allergan) concludes that while the risk of developing BIA-ALCL is only 0.003%, about 9% of breast implants rupture, 13% result in capsular contractions, and the risk of reoperation over 10 years is 32% (p. 45). A group of Dutch and Australian medical scholars are more circumspect; they criticize some existing studies and pose the need for “quality monitoring of breast implants independent from the industry” (Rakhorst et al., 2017, p. 1355). They conclude, “Breast implants are considered high-risk medical devises” and that longterm data are necessary to assess the rupture, capsular contracture, pain, and ALCL or immune problem rates induced by silicone (Rakhorst et al., 2017, p. 1359). Similarly, a massive review of breast implant studies by U.S. medical scholars concluded, “Owing to the flaws and inconsistencies among the studies reviewed, further investigation is required to determine whether any true associations exist between silicone gel implants and long-term health outcomes” (Balk et al., 2016, p. 173). Ridgeley (2019) wrote a powerful personal treatise on this topic in April 2019. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a bilateral (double) mastectomy but did not need radiation or chemotherapy. “Several months” after her mastectomies, she had not only skin necrosis and a torn muscle from the reconstruction but also chronic and extreme pain in her shoulders. She started searching on Google and found: My Web searches told me what my doctors, my MRIs and my pathology reports hadn’t: My implants could cause a rare lymphoma called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL)…. Now it’s reported to be as high as 1 case in 460 for breast cancer patients with the specific “textured” implants I had: Allergan Biocell 410s (which were taken off the market in Europe, Israel, Brazil, Japan and Russia last year). (Ridgeley, 2019, n.p.) Ridgely (2019) is most upset by her concern that her surgeons, the FDA, and the implant manufacturer “all knew about the [lymphoma] risk and didn’t make it clear to me so I could make an informed decision” (n.p.). The highly gendered nature of cosmetic surgery speaks to the added emphasis women and girls face with having societally approved bodies. However, 24,753 men and boys had breast reduction cosmetic surgery in 2018, indicating the unacceptability of men and boys to have breasts over a certain size (American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2019). Figure 8.4 summarizes statistics from the most recently available report on plastic/cosmetic surgery in the United States published online by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2018 statistics). The statistics indicate that paying to change one’s own or one’s child’s body (data are reported on

individuals as young as 13 receiving breast implants and breast reductions for boys) is highly gendered and a billion-dollar industry that is growing, and that silicone filled (and encased) implants are increasing. Indeed, 88% of all inserted breast implants were silicone-filled, and this rate was even higher, 95%, among women who had breast cancer reconstruction (American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2019).

Egg Donor GBA Another poorly studied and gendered medical procedure that might be classified as a corporate crime is the practice of women serving as egg donors, “egg sharing” for infertile couples. The women most sought after for donating (“sharing”) their eggs are young, White college women (indicating racist and classist assumptions of the “best” genes). Similar to the long-term safety of breast implants, little is known about the long-term effects of the intrusive medical procedure of “harvesting” eggs (Alberta, Berry, & Levine, 2014; Klitzman, 2016; Myers, 2013; J. Schneider, Lahl, & Kramer, 2017), and the ethical concern of commodification of the oocytes (eggs) and the donors is rarely addressed (Alberta et al., 2014; Klitzman, 2016). The limited research on the short-term side effects of egg donation include ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, infection, and vaginal bleeding (Alberta et al., 2014; J. Schneider et al., 2017; Söderström-Anttila et al., 2016). Indeed, it may be that the heavy drug treatment used to produce numerous eggs, temporarily “throwing” these women into hyperovulation, may increase these “donors’” chances of breast, ovarian, uterine, and other cancers, as well as infertility problems (Althuis et al., 2005; K. George, 2008; Mead, 1999; Pearson, 2006; J. Schneider, 2008; J. Schneider et al., 2017; Söderström-Anttila et al., 2016). Research has not adequately examined the ethical and safety issues of “egg sharing” (Alberta et al., 2014; K. George, 2008; Heng, 2008; Klitzman, 2016; Pearson, 2006; J. Schneider, 2008). Ethical concerns include “that very high compensation may manipulate women into making rash decisions to proceed with donation without adequate consideration of the associated risks” (Alberta et al., 2014, p. 232). Similar to breast implant safety, the women are rarely notified of the potential risks, often assuming that the lack of risk information means the procedures are safe (Alberta et al., 2014; Klitzman, 2016; J. Schneider et al., 2017).

Description

Figure 8.4 ● Statistics on Plastic Surgery in the United States in 2018 Source: American Society of Plastic Surgeons. (2019). 2018 Plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plasticsurgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf

In sum, the breast implant industry and egg donor market can be viewed as corporate violence against women and girls, due to the highly inadequate testing of the safety of these procedures. Given the frequency of both procedures, this lack of ethical, careful, long-term research is inexcusable.

Environmental/Green GBA Finally, related to corporate crimes against women, in terms of GBA it is also necessary to invoke what has been referred to as “green,” “environmental,” and “ecoglobal” criminology (Wonders & Danner, 2015, p. 401). Green crimes are often allowed by laws, or laws simply do not cover them, but include social harms and violations of the law resulting from “environmentally damaging behaviors” (M. J. Lynch, 2018, p. 405), and green victims are “living entities (humans, nonhuman animals, plants, ecosystems, etc.) harmed by green crimes” (M. J. Lynch, 2018, p. 406). N. Klein’s (2015) classic book on climate change, This Changes Everything, clearly documents that our neoliberal global political economy is the primary cause of global warming. Given the significant overlap in neoliberalism for corporations who strongly influence law-making and law-enforcing, these crimes have been referred to as “state-corporate” crimes (Michalowski & Kramer, 2006; Wonders & Danner, 2015).

Wonders and Danner (2015) stress that neither gender nor climate change are “natural facts”; rather, both are socially constructed (p. 403). Importantly, environmental crimes, which could include global warming if one takes into account (as I believe they should) the corporations and governments who are contributing the most to global warming, do not impact everyone equally. Rather, environmental crimes (including global warming) tend to contribute to already existing inequities, including those of gender, race, and class (M. J. Lynch, 2018; Wonders & Danner, 2015). Indeed, women exposed to toxic chemicals and pollutants have been referred to as “a class of invisible victims” (M. J. Lynch, 2018, p. 405).

MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND GIRLS (MMIWG) The homicide victimization rate among Indigenous people in Canada and the United States is “the highest of any racial and ethnic group” (Monchalin, Marques, Reasons, & Arora, 2019, p. 212). This book is dedicated to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG) in North America. Although most rape/sexual assault is intraracial (the victim and offender are the same race), GBA against Indigenous women/girls is not; “Native American women are mostly assaulted by non-native men” (Weldon, 2018, p. 37). The rape and murder of Indigenous women and girls has been described as “colonial terror” (Razack, 2016, p. 289) and “the sexual brutalization and attempted annihilation of Indigenous women” (Razack, 2016, p. 285). Luccesi (2019) provides a compelling application of life course theory and pathways analysis to document how “relationships to land, colonialism, and intergenerational violence” resulted in MMIWG by “the study of the course of individuals’ lives as they change over time, contextualized by policy, societal structure, and historical events” (p. 869). Colonization is deeply linked to the rape and murder of women and land whereby “the sexualized violence” against Indigenous women must be made visible … [and] establish that Indigenous women are collectively sexually violable and that Indigenous lands are occupied” (Razack, 2016, p. 294). Razack (2016, p. 299) focuses on the “disposability” of MMIWG “in a patriarchal and settler colonial context,” particularly when a MMIWG is also a sex worker/prostitute and “characterized as part of a throwaway population, used up in colonialism and used up in prostitution, on her way to illness, addiction, and the kind of death she ultimately endured” (p. 299).6 The 450-mile long Highway 16 in British Columbia, Canada, where “public transportation is practically nonexistent,” has many impoverished Indigenous communities along it. It has been dubbed the “Highway of Tears” due to the huge number of MMIWG who disappeared or found dead on this “remote and underserviced highway” and, as noted earlier, are victim-blamed for hitchhiking (K. A. Morton, 2016, p. 300, also see Levin, 2016).7 6

Razack (2016) is referring to the 2011 landmark case of Cindy Gladue, a Cree Canadian who was also a prostitute and whose sexually mutilated body and death were by a White male client, Bradley Barton, but expands the analysis beyond Gladue. 7

The “Highway of Tears” is “a reference to the infamous Trail of Tears, the name of the 19th-century forced relocation of tens of thousands of Native Americans from their homelands in the South-east US to west of the Mississippi, during which thousands died” (Connett, 2019; see also McDiarmid, 2019). Despite efforts to address MMIWG in both Canada and the United States, the efforts in Canada have been far better financed but also criticized (J. G. Hansen & Dim, 2019). “Justice is often inaccessible to Indigenous women suffering violence, both in the US and Canada. In both contexts, formal institutions driving gender equality policy are shaped by informal cultural norms rooted in colonial histories. These informal norms impede the realization of gender justice for Indigenous women” (Weldon, 2018, p. 37).

WHAT DOES FEMINIST REFORM LOOK LIKE?

A classic article in feminist scholarship is Black lesbian feminist and writer Audre Lorde’s (1981) “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” Many feminist reformers have struggled with Lorde’s (1981) well-taken point: Is it possible to create meaningful and ethical feminist changes in a system that is built on sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, nationalism, and so on? In her classic book a few years later, Feminist Theory From Margin to Center, Black feminist scholar bell hooks8 (1984) described the U.S. CLS as hierarchical, coercively authoritative, and as a foundation for patriarchal dominance. More recently, in their article on carceral feminisms (recall this from Chapter 1), Whalley and Hackett (2017) warn about “the intersections between white liberal feminisms and the carceral state, particularly with nonprofit agencies” that may “further threaten the safety, stability, and selfdetermination of women of color, queer women, transgendered[sic] clients, economically disadvantaged women, and disabled women” (p. 456). These scholars convincingly contend that these intervening “reforms” in the CLS “directly strengthen institutions that perpetuate economic exploitation, colonialist notions of progress, and white supremacy” (p. 456). Indeed, Whalley’s (2019) ethnography of a rape crisis center documented integration with the CLS and expansions of the carceral state, which was detrimental to the survivors (as well as those charged). 8

hooks requests that her name always appear uncapitalized.

Jaleel’s (2013) work on global feminist responses to GBA are strikingly similar, reporting the focus on sexual danger at the expense of economic equality and sexual freedom. Notably, Jaleel (2013) draws some related concerns regarding global feminist mobilization to address GBA, particularly “wartime rape,” that ultimately “pandered to ethno-nationalist elements and encouraged the outlook of ethically segregated states as the most logical solution to the fighting” (p. 117). Jaleel warns that the resulting “international governance and legal advocacy” resulting from transnational feminist activism “retains the possibility of, without prescribing, critical alternatives to the global problem of rape and sexual violence” (p. 131).

SUMMARY The foremost image of the victims and survivors of gender-based abuse (GBA) has been invisibility. GBA offenses are some of the most underreported crimes against persons in the criminal legal system (CLS) in the United States and worldwide. Due to feminist activists and scholars and brave survivors speaking out, the information on women and girls’ victimization in the (often overlapping) forms of rape/sexual abuse, intimate partner abuse (IPA), stalking, human trafficking (including sex trafficking), forced marriage, obstetric fistula, and so on, have received unprecedented attention. It is encouraging that with feminist activism and scholarship, the Violence Against Women Act, and other changes implemented in and outside of the United States, there is far more research on the rates of, best responses to, and training/educating CLS personnel about GBAs. This scholarship identifies the various forms of GBA as more widespread, frequent, and threatening, including deadly, than once acknowledged. This chapter discussed GBA as both a result of, and a reinforcement for, gender power disparity (see Figure 8.2). That is, the threat and existence of GBA increases gender inequality, and simultaneously, gender inequality makes GBA more likely. Malcrida’s (2006) contention of mentally disabled rape survivors holds true for all GBA victims and survivors who are marginalized, whether by race/ethnicity, sexuality, gender, class, immigration status, or mental or physical disability status: “Powerful social actors have consistently had the capacity to discredit and silence the memories of those in the margins” (p. 406). Yet, some survivors, even under remarkable oppressions, have also risen against all odds (McGuire, 2011). Not everyone survived with their lives or if with their lives, with CLS justice, but their lives still matter.

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure

Text below the figure reads, GBA and gender inequality do not occur in a vacuum and both are also influenced by racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, and other forms of oppression. Back to Figure A box at the top of the infographic with hand-drawn borders has text in it that reads: 2018 U.S. plastic/cosmetic surgery statistics from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. There are three semicircles seen in a row below this box. Each semicircle has a certain percentage of It marked off in a darker tone with the percentage and the corresponding data point seen below each semicircle. The first semicircle reads 92% in the middle and the text below it reads, of cosmetic surgery was on girls/women. The second semicircle reads 3% in the middle and the text below it reads, of breast implants were for individuals aged 13 to 19 (1% of this age group had their implants removed). The third semicircle reads 48% in the middle and the text below it reads, increase in cosmetic breast augmentation surgery since 2000. A row of eleven identical icons is seen next. The first icon on the row has a short hairstyle in a darker tone. The text below this row of icons reads: 1 in 11 women who had breast augmentation had implants removed A heart icon with a heartbeat symbol through the middle is seen on the left below. The text next to this icon reads, 313,735 women and girls had cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. An icon of intersecting heterosexual male and female symbols is seen on the right, below the row of icons and the text beside it reads, for gender confirmation surgeries, 2,885 individuals transitioned from male to female (up 16% since 2017) and 6,691 transitioned from female to male (up 15% since 2017). Two more icons are seen on the last row. The text on the left beside a looped ribbon reads, 101,657 women had reconstruction surgery from breast cancer, a 41% increase since 2000. The text on the left of the dollar bill icons seen on the right reads, Individuals in the U.S. spent $16.5 billion on cosmetic procedures.

9 FOCUSING ON SEXUAL ABUSE Taken as a whole, the results show that rape myths affect prosecutors’ decisions to file charges in sexual assault cases. All three elements of rape myths—risky behavior, victim credibility issues, and real rape factors—were associated with the charging decision in bivariate analyses, and risky behavior and victim credibility affected this decision in the multivariate analyses using the full sample, even after controlling for the legally relevant factors. Furthermore, evidence strength and aggravation, two legally relevant factors, had no effect on the decision to file charges. —S. S. George and Spohn (2018, p. 1302)

Few words in the English language have as powerful an impact as the word rape, yet as this chapter explains, defining rape and other types of sexual abuse has proven difficult socially, legally, and academically. Historically, children have not been educated about the meaning of rape, yet most girls are raised to know that this threat restricts them and is something to fear. As the awareness about boys’ risks for sexual abuse (S. Gray & Rarick, 2018; K. J. Terry & Freilich, 2012) has increased over the years, parents, teachers, and other guardians are becoming more worried about their daughters’ and sons’ risks of sexual abuse and act to restrict their lives accordingly— as they should. Research also documents the added risk of sexual abuse for LGBTQI+ youths and adults and particularly trans individuals (Binion & Gray, 2020; Griner et al., 2017; Kota et al., 2020; Shultz, 2020). A national study of college students found that trans students had significantly higher risks of sexual assault than women (or men) students (Griner et al., 2017). Regardless of the potential survivor/victim’s gender, individuals are most at risk of sexual abuse by men, yet women are simultaneously socialized to view men as their protectors, a phenomenon that has been described as mafia-like (S. Griffin, 1971). Furthermore, although it is assumed that known men will protect women from aberrant strange men’s violence (Stanko, 1993), women (as well as girls, boys, and men) are most likely to be victimized by men they know. A significant amount of research documents that American Indian and Alaskan Native women are far more at risk of rape and sexual assault than any other race/ethnic group and more at risk of rape by someone of a different race, usually a white man (Bachman et al., 2010; Deer, 2015; Lucchesi, 2019; Russell, 1984; Weldon, 2018). Moreover, compared with assaults of women of other races/ethnicities, assaults of American Indian and Alaskan Native women involve armed perpetrators, involve perpetrators under the influence of drugs/alcohol, and require medical attention for injuries occurring during the sexual assault (Bachman et al., 2010). Numerous studies report that African American women/girls appear to be more at risk of rape than white women/girls (Amir, 1971; Bachman et al., 2010; Coston, 1992; Schram, 1978; Skogan, 1976; T. J. Taylor, Holleran, & Topalli, 2009). The racist and classist obsession with “real” rapes and who is allowed to have their sexual abuses/assaults/rapes identified as such, both societally and in the criminal legal system (CLS), is also (in addition to racism and classism) strongly connected to the idea “real” rapes are committed by strangers. Most sexual abuses, including rapes, are committed by individuals known to the victims, and often well known, such as family members, spouses, dates, and friends. Police-reported rapes have historically overrepresented stranger rape victim–offender relationships (VORs), because these survivors are mostly likely to define their experiences as rape and to believe the CLS will believe them and find them more credible. Moreover, much of the research, particularly until Russell (1984), conducted to document rape characteristics focused on police-reported rapes (mostly using Uniform Crime Report data). Because it is well known that stranger rapes and rapes by African American men and boys have historically been more likely to be reported to the police, VOR

and race are mentioned throughout this chapter, as both have histories of significant inaccuracies.

DEFINING SEXUAL ABUSE The last chapter provided a definition of gender-based abuse (GBA). This chapter focuses on one of the most prevalent and often most threatening forms of GBA: sexual abuse. Research consistently finds that rape and other forms of sexual abuse are primarily committed by men/boys against women/girls, and even when men/boys are sexual abuse victims, the abusers are primarily men/boys (Dartnall & Jewkes, 2013; Felson & Cundiff, 2014; Felson, Cundiff, & Painter-Davis, 2012; Pinciotti & Seligowski, 2019; T. J. Taylor et al., 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Weiss, 2010; Wentz, 2019). Abbey and her colleagues’ (2001) review of sexual abuse research concluded that a conservative estimate is that at least a quarter (25%) of women in the United States have been sexually assaulted in adolescence and/or adulthood and 18% have been raped. Weiss’s (2010) analysis of gender and rape using 1992 through early 2000 data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that 9% of the victims were boys/men (91% girls/women) and that men/boys are 99% of the perpetrators against women/girls and 54% of the perpetrators against men/boys. Moreover, when men/boys are the perpetrators, they tend to abuse at the more serious levels and have a bigger age gap between themselves and their victims (Russell, 1984, 1986; Weiss, 2010). Consistent with Figure 8.1 in the last chapter, it is important to understand that physically violent rape and other sexual assaults are part of sexual abuse (originally pointed out by Russell, 1984). Legally, the term assault implies physical violence, and sexual abuse crimes are often referred to as sexual violence and sexual assaults, but this leaves out an unknown but likely much larger number of sexual abuse cases that are not violent, nor do they always legally meet the standards of assault. Most child sexual abuses are not violent assaults, but they are still extremely violating, abusive, and troubling for the survivors. Figure 9.1 portrays this distinction.

Description

Figure 9.1 ● Sexual Assault (Including Rape) as a Portion of Sexual Abuse

Consent, Coercion, and Force Consent is key to establishing whether a sexual event or act is sexual abuse, and whether sex is consensual seems to be most disputed in acquaintance sexual abuses, such as “date rapes” (Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Lim & Roloff, 1999). Consent is “knowing and voluntary agreement” to have sex (Lim & Roloff, 1999, p. 1). Lim and Roloff (1999) report that sexual consent can be made verbally (e.g., “Let’s have sex” or responding “Yes” to the question or statement “Let’s have sex”) or nonverbally (e.g., pushing someone away who is attempting to be sexually intimate). Lim and Roloff (1999) draw on Remick’s (1993) three standards for attributing sexual consent: affirmative behavior, affirmative nonconsent, and affirmative language. In addition to verbal and nonverbal consent, Lim and Roloff (1999) stress the contextual cues of the event, such as whether individuals are limited in their capacity to consent to sex because of a power difference resulting from mental, physical, or age status, or being in a coma, too drunk or high, and so on. Sexual abuse runs on a continuum from coercion to force. Over time, as will be seen in the following section, sexual assault and rape laws have broadened to include coercive (nonforceful yet abusive) means of obtaining nonconsensual sex. Force, a physical method to obtain power (e.g., holding down, hitting, or stabbing) is how people typically think of rape and other sexual abuses. Coercion is most associated with using psychological methods (such as threats or promises of rewards) or alcohol/drugs to sexually abuse. One study defined sexual coercion as “insistence or verbal pressure to engage in sexual activities and/or promising rewards or necessities in exchange for sexual activities” (Salwen & O’Leary, 2013, p. 1971). Using coercion, an abuser may achieve sexual intimacy through various threats, including threats of violence, but not necessarily. For instance, a man may threaten a girl with telling her parents that she was smoking marijuana if she does not comply with his sexual directions. A boyfriend may tell his girlfriend he will break up with her if she will not have sex with him. A foster father may threaten a girl with removal of support if she does not submit to his sexual demands. A minister or priest may promise special favors for sexual compliance. A husband might tell his wife that if she does not have sex with him consensually, he will rape her. These examples of coercion show how physical force is not necessary to sexually victimize someone. Figure 9.2 is a portrayal of the continuum of abusers’ use of coercion to force, to acquire nonconsensual sex. However, perhaps this is not actually a continuum, as it is difficult to rank force, coercion, and exploitation.

Description

Figure 9.2 ● Coercion/Exploitation-to-Force Continuum of Sexual Abuse: Means of Acquiring Nonconsensual Sex N. K. Cook and Messman-Moore’s (2018, p. 514) recent study of college women rape survivors identifies sexual abusers’ tactics most consistent with the Figure 9.2 continuum. The survivors reported numerous tactics by their abusers (who typically used more than one); listed in order of prevalence they were perpetrator taking advantage of survivor’s voluntary intoxication (83%), perpetrator continuing sex after the survivor said “no” (73%), perpetrator used force (27%), perpetrator gave survivor

alcohol or drugs without her knowledge (11%), and perpetrator threatened survivor (9%) (pp. 514–515).

Drug and Alcohol Facilitated Sexual Abuse (DAFSA) Similar to N. K. Cook and Messman-Moore (2018), there is a growing body of research on incapacitated abuse and drug and alcohol facilitated sexual abuse (DAFSA). Incapacitated sexual abuse is where a victim is physically unable to consent to sex. Although the research focuses on victims who cannot consent because of the level of alcohol and/or drugs they have consumed, incapacitation could also be used to sexually abuse infants, people in comas, severely mentally and/or physically disabled people, anesthetized people, and other such individuals unable to consent. It is useful to remember that drugs and alcohol can work on a continuum from impairing to incapacitating potential victims and that drugs and alcohol can be voluntarily or involuntarily consumed (Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, & Axsom, 2009). (See Figure 9.3.) Most research on incapacitated rapes restricts the definition to drug/alcohol-related sexual abuse, or sex with someone “who is unable to consent or resist sexual intercourse owing to alcohol or drug intoxication” (A. L. Brown, Testa, & MessmanMoore, 2009, p. 898). Taking this one step further, drug/alcohol facilitated sexual abuse (DAFSA) (sometimes the definitions do not include alcohol and are strictly drug-facilitated sexual abuse [DFSA]) includes incapacitated rape due to alcohol/drug use inhibiting a person’s ability to consent, but where the abuser actually caused the victim’s incapacitated state by administering the drug/alcohol in order to rape (McGregor, Lipowska, Shah, Du Mont, & De Siato, 2003). These sexual abuses are so institutionalized that some of the drugs used to commit such assaults, such as gamma hydroxybutryrate (GHB) and Rohypnol (generically named flunitrazepam and commonly referred to as a “roofie”), are called “date rape drugs” (McGregor et al., 2003), and their use significantly increased during the 1990s (LeBeau et al., 1999). The typical scenario consists of the assailant adding a drug that reduces inhibitions and induces amnesia to an unsuspecting woman’s drink. Despite the frightening and powerful nature of the “date rape” drugs, it is important to remember that one college study found: “Alcohol is the most common ‘rape drug,’ with up to two-thirds of victims consuming alcohol prior to the assault” (Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, et al., 2009).

Description

Figure 9.3 ● Littleton, Grills-Tquel, and Axsom’s Sexual Abuse Continuum Based on Victims’ Impairment Level Source: The categories for this continuum are from Littleton, H., Grills-Taquechel, A., & Axsom, D. (2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and post-assault experiences. Violence and Victims, 24(4), 439–457.

Restricting the definition of sexual abuse decreases understanding, minimizes or even hides sexual abuse, denies survivors’ recourse or validation, and allows people who sexually abuse to get away with and continue abusing. In some ways, nonviolent sexual abuse can be more troubling for survivors because they often feel as if they somehow colluded in or consented to the sex. If someone, particularly an older child

or an adult, simply starts sexually touching or asking children to perform any sex act, such children are often understandably confused and feel as if they cannot tell the person to stop. Even if the sexual abuser asks children if it is “okay” to perform a sex act, children are typically very confused and usually scared, and again, feel as if they cannot say “no.” An example of extremely abusive but nonviolent adult rape is bosses telling employees or professors telling students that they will be fired and not get a good recommendation (or fail a class, for a student) if they do not comply with a sexual request. It is important to recognize that sexual abuse consists of many nonconsensual sexual acts (e.g., forcing sex) and activities (e.g., spying on or recording someone undressing or having sex, revenge porn), and occurs between wide varieties of persons. The term sexual abuse will be used in this book in order to include the various forms of sexual abuses discussed, whether by coercion or through force: attempted or completed penile–vaginal rape, anal and oral rape, molestation; sexual harassment; sexual assault with foreign objects; incapacitated rapes (e.g., drug/alcohol-facilitated rapes); sexual voyeurism, and so on. Levine’s (2018, p. 326) recent analysis of U.S. rape law reform documents numerous problems, including narrow definitions of women and of sex (and thus rape) that exclude trans women. “Transgender women are women, and violence against them is violence against women” (Levine, 2018, p. 329). Levine (2018) found in many states “the concept of ‘rape’ was consistently limited to penile–vaginal penetration” and, in some states, with solely male perpetrators and solely female victims (p. 336). The comprehensive and simple definition developed for the original edition of this book is Sexual abuse is any forced, coerced, or exploitative sexual act or activity. This definition allows a broad range of sexual abuses but also excludes gender, recognizing that regardless of gender (and most other characteristics), just about anyone can sexually abuse and anyone can be the victim of sexual abuse.1 Fortunately, most people choose not to sexually abuse. 1

It is hard to imagine how an infant could sexually abuse. But even the strongest man in the world could be sexually abused while under anesthesia or passed out from drugs/alcohol, being ambushed by the next strongest person in the world, and so on.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN DEFINING RAPE AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSES Throughout history, rape laws were aimed mostly at protecting virginal daughters in wealthy families (Brownmiller, 1975). From 1770 to 1845 in England, rape was defined as penetration of the vagina by the penis, where ejaculation had taken place (A. Clark, 1987, pp. 8–9). Many countries, including the United States, have followed English Law, and until the 1970s the highly restricted legal definition of rape was a man using or threatening force to obtain penile–vaginal intercourse with a woman who is “not his wife” (Estrich, 1987, p. 8). In addition to the reality that everyone can be a victim of sexual abuse and almost anyone can perpetrate sexual abuse, rape is not restricted to penile–vaginal intercourse; it includes oral and anal rape and sexual assaults using foreign objects, as well as many other sexual violations. A growing body of research documents man-to-man and woman-to-woman sexual abuse, and though far less common than different-sex rape, the dynamics are similar and most often committed by current or former partners or dates (P. J. Gilroy & Carroll, 2009; Girshick, 2002a, 2002b; C. McDonald, 2012; Weiss, 2010). In late 18th-century England, rape was used to justify women’s place in the home (A. Clark, 1987). The system went from trivializing rape, then, to using it as an excuse to restrict women from working or traveling outside the home. In 18th-century England, sexually victimized women were in a double bind if they wished to involve the court system to receive justice (A. Clark, 1987). Being raped caused a woman to lose her credibility because by admittance, she had sex (although forced) with a man not her husband. Thus, by raping a woman, a man not only victimized her but stripped her of her credibility as a victim, thereby establishing his own non-abuser status.

Subsequently, conviction was extremely rare unless (1) the woman proved her chastity was preserved by being “only” the victim of an attempted rape (it was much more difficult to obtain convictions for completed rapes because they implied the victim’s culpability), or (2) a husband or father of a raped woman went to court to challenge his loss of property value (A. Clark, 1987, p. 47). Unfortunately, some people still view their partners, spouses, girl/boyfriends, and/or children as their property. This is highly gendered (men/boys do this more than women/girls) and will be addressed more thoroughly in the next chapter. Four major legal changes have occurred that started with the second wave of the women’s movement in the 1970s: (1) recognition that most sexual abuse victims and offenders know each other (are not strangers); (2) broadening the definition of “rape” beyond penile–vaginal intercourse; (3) although sexual abuse is a gender-related abuse (GBA), it can be committed by any gender, and any gender can be victimized; and (4) recognition that sexual abuse can be coercive as well as forceful. In the 1970s, when sexual abuse was first becoming defined as a social problem, the focus was on adult–stranger rapes. These were the rapes focused on in the media and the ones disproportionately reported to the police. With feminist speak-outs on rape starting in the 1970s, often during Take Back the Night events, it became clearer that acquaintance rapes far outnumbered stranger rapes, although stranger rapes were disproportionately in the media and reported to the police, and tend to be the ones for which survivors are least likely to blame themselves (Dartnall & Jewkes, 2013; Russell, 1984; T. J. Taylor et al., 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998).

ANOTHER LOOK AT RAPE MYTHS AND A RAPE CULTURE Rape myths are “incorrect beliefs and assumptions” about the perpetrators, victims, and effects of rape (Cromer & Goldsmith, 2010, p. 619). Many scholars have identified rape myths, and the ongoing societal, religious, legal, and individual adherence to these myths as promoting a rape culture (or climate) (for a review, see K. M. Edwards et al., 2011). Minister (2018, p. xii) points out “rape culture seems to manifest in cultural artifacts from Robin Thicke’s hit song ‘Blurred Lines’ to the rape of Dinah in Genesis, the first book of the Bible” (p. xii). Taken together, rape myths blame the victims, excuse the rapists, and minimize rape (Minister, 2018). Chapter 8 reported the strong relationship between support for traditional (sexist) gender roles and adherence to rape myths. Myths about alcohol/drugs causing rape is one of the biggest myths. While alcohol/drugs are associated with rape and increase the risk of rape (Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Fair & Vanyur, 2011), the abuser is still the one who must take responsibility. Many of us may be more likely to “have the nerve” to sing karaoke in a bar when we are tipsy or drunk than when we are sober, but most people who do not kick their pets, hurt their children, yell racial epithets, and sexually abuse when they are sober also refrain from doing these behaviors when they are drunk or on drugs. A study of college students found that the mere presence of alcohol, not so much its consumption, triggered the initiation of sex (Corcoran & Thomas, 1991). There is no doubt that alcohol and drugs are often present and consumed in sexual abuse incidents. An extensive overview of the research on alcohol consumption and rape stipulates that in approximately half (with a range from 34% to 74%) of sexual assault cases, the assailants were drinking alcohol; and likewise, in approximately half (with a range from 30% to 70%) of these cases, the victims were drinking alcohol (Abbey et al., 2001). In most cases, the drinking by the victim and abuser co-occur (Abbey et al., 2001). While it is necessary to examine the role that alcohol/drugs play in placing potential victims (all of us) at risk of sexual abuse, it does not follow to conclude that alcohol/drugs cause rape; the best argument for this is drug/alcohol facilitated rapes, but these are still caused by the abuser. Unfortunately, sexual abuse victims using alcohol/drugs are not only more at risk of rape, but they are more likely blamed for being victimized (even though sex with someone too incapacitated by drugs/alcohol to consent is against the law in every state). At the same time, rapists who are drunk

and/or high often blame the chemicals for “causing” them to rape and are frequently seen as less responsible for raping because they were drunk/high. Notably, the opposite standard is at work in car accidents: Drunk/high drivers are viewed as more responsible than sober drivers. Addressing this includes education and raising awareness. A study of college men found many who did not view incapacitated rapes (due to the victim being too drunk/high to consent) as rapes (J. L. Carr & VanDeusen, 2004). Taken together, these and other data indicate that many women on campus are at a significant risk of sexual victimization from a smaller group of men who likely perpetrate many so-called date or party rapes. Another rape/sexual abuse myth is that rapists/sexual abusers are sick. The typical rapist has frequently been portrayed as crazy, sexually starved, or psychotic. However, empirical research is unable to confirm these beliefs, and rapists are no more likely than non-rapists to be mentally ill (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Russell, 1984; Scully, 1990). Interviews with men who confessed to raping, as well as with men who had not raped, demonstrated how rapists often (1) blame women for turning them on, (2) link sex and violence, and (3) report wanting to be violent toward women they perceive as trying to “tease” them (Beneke, 1982). Another rape myth is that people living in rural countryside are more likely to support rape myths, but a study examining this found no such relationship (L. L. King & Roberts, 2011). The rape myth that rapists/sexual abusers are “over-sexed” is addressed by research finding many individuals who have consensual sex with dates, lovers, and/or spouses still rape, and some of them rape their own partners (Groth & Birnbaum, 1979; Kanin, 1985; Russell, 1982). Stated alternatively, they have access to consensual sex but still want to rape. Russell (1986) found many mothers are shocked upon discovering that their husbands sexually abused their daughter(s), given that their own sex lives with the perpetrator were very active. A qualitative study of college men comparing sexually aggressive with sexually nonaggressive men found that the sexually aggressive men were more accusatory of the victims’ responsibility in “getting herself raped,” and the sexually aggressive men’s comments implied that forced sex is a woman’s consequence for allowing some sexual activity to occur (Yescavage, 1999, p. 809). Moreover, the sexually aggressive men’s comments suggest these men knew they used force to inflict harm. Thus, this study concluded that college men rape out of a sense of male entitlement more than a sense that the victim only offered token resistance. Similarly, a study of 114 men aged 17 to 43 years old found men’s general sense of men’s entitlement and their specific sense of men’s sexual entitlement of women were strong predictors of “an array of rape-related attitudes and behaviors” (M. S. Hill & Fischer, 2001, p. 45). Thus, rape is institutionalized and we have a rape culture when we see strong adherence to rape myths and institutions’ general lack of willingness to punish abusers. What are some of the ways the male-stream culture feeds rape myths? An extensive study of cyber rapes (cultural articulations of rape found using web search engines) found no rapes of men, all depicted explicit violence and domination, and gang rapes made up one third of the rape depictions (Visano, 2002). The graphic rape images often included labels, such as “skank,” “slut,” “bitch,” and “whore,” indicating the victim’s need to be punished. The rape images were clearly designed to link rape with erotic power and to depict the degradation and objectification of women/girls for sexual pleasure (Visano, 2002). In addition to misogyny, the images were replete with racism. African American followed by Asian American women/girls were the primary targets of violence, and the racist portrayals were reinforced with captions packed with racial epithets and harmful stereotypes. These cyber rapes are particularly disturbing when we understand how easily accessible they are (Visano, 2002). Another important source of male-stream anti-woman/girl media is television music videos. They not only enhance negative self-images about women and girls’ bodies (Tiggemann & Slater, 2004), but they also portray aggressive sex in about one third of the implicit or explicit sex scenes. Although the males did not appear as sexual masochists, the females were typically viewed as the recipients (not initiators) of sex and as enjoying aggressive sex more than the males did (B. S. Fisher et al., 2013). An article in the New York Magazine referred to MTV as “the date rape channel”

(Christgau, 2003). Video games are played by millions of people, mostly boys, and these games also celebrate violence. One study found that watching video games “depicting sexual objectification of women and violence against women resulted in statistically significant increased rape myths acceptance” for male but not female participants (Beck, Boys, Rose, & Beck, 2012). Finally, a more recent study found “that viewing TV sports was positively related to hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and the sexual objectification of women” and adherence to rape myths (Custers & McNallie, 2017, p. 813). Clearly many people watch TV sports and play video games that do not rape or sexually abuse, but these studies indicate that they have a misogynistic impact.

STATISTICS ON SEXUAL ABUSE Of all violent crimes, sexual assaults are the least likely to be reported to the police (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Rennison, 2010). Although most sexual abuse survivors are more likely to disclose their victimizations to friends and family than to CLS officials, it is usually still very difficult to disclose to friends and family members, and does not always happen (Ullman, 2010; Whalley & Belknap, 2013). Sexual abuse survivors often feel ashamed and/or worried that regardless of whom they report to (e.g., family, friends, coworkers, police, prosecutors, doctors/nurses, etc.), they will not be believed and/or they will be blamed for their victimization (Ullman, 2010; Whalley & Belknap, 2013). Way too often this is the case. There is not a “single” method of sexual abuse survivor disclosure, and survivors vary by how long after the abuse (if ever) and how often over the course of their lives they disclose to new and existing friends, family, romantic partners, health care providers, police, researchers, and others (Ahrens, Stansell, & Jennings, 2010; Ullman, 2010). As expected, when survivors experience support from friends and family members to whom they disclose, they are less likely to have psychological problems such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and low self-esteem (Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012; Ullman, 2010; Whalley & Belknap, 2013). Similarly, if rape survivors’ family members or friends do not see the disclosed event as rape, the survivor is less likely to acknowledge the incident as rape (Konradi, 2007). Some rape and other sexual abuse survivors do not acknowledge their victimizations even to themselves (Russell, 1984; M. D. Schwartz & Leggett, 1999; Sudderth, 1998). Unacknowledged rape victims are those “who report experiences that meet a legal definition of rape but do not label their experiences as such or even as a victimization,” and this can be as high as 73% of survivors, according to one study (Littleton & Henderson, 2009, p. 149). Unacknowledged rape survivors are typically either unsure what to label these events or benignly (mis)label them as “bad sex,” “miscommunication,” or “seduction” (Littleton & Henderson, 2009, p. 149). This is likely because “many unacknowledged [sexual] assaults resemble a normative sexual interaction to a certain extent (e.g., they are not highly violent, they occur within the context of a relationship wherein sexual activity would be considered normative)” (Littleton & Henderson, 2009, p. 150). Survivors of date, romantic partner, and marital rapes, and/or impaired or incapacitated dates, are some of the least likely to identify/acknowledge their victimizations as rapes (Littleton, Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2008; Rennison, 2010; Russell, 1984; M. D. Schwartz & Leggett, 1999; Sudderth, 1998). Compared to acknowledged rape victims (those who identify themselves as having been raped), unacknowledged rape victims’ incidents are typically more likely to have been less violent and forceful, caused less victim injury, involved less victim resistance, involved drugs/alcohol, and involved a perpetrator with whom they were in a romantic and possibly consensual sexual relationship prior to the abuse (Littleton et al., 2008; Littleton & Henderson, 2009). A more recent study found that among college women, unacknowledged survivors are more at risk for subsequent sexual assaults (revictimization) (Littleton, Grills, Layh, & Rudolph, 2017). Although they do not label these experiences as rapes, unacknowledged victims can still experience significant distress, and are more likely than acknowledged victims to continue their relationship with the abuser and to use alcohol/drugs after the rape (Littleton et al., 2008). A more recent study found, as expected, that rape survivors who “voiced

nonconsent” during the rape, were more likely to identify their experiences as sexual assault/rape (N. K. Cook & Messman-Moore, 2018). Until 1973, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provided most of the victimization data in the United States. The UCR data are limited for any crime because they include only crimes reported to the police, and especially stranger rapes have been far more likely to be reported to the police (LaFree, 1989; Larsen, Hilden, & Lidegaard, 2015). In 1973, the National Crime Survey (NCS), a national victimization survey, was implemented to get around the problems inherent in the solely police-reported crimes in the UCR. A major criticism of the NCS was the failure to ask about rape (or any kind of sexual assault) unless a respondent answered “yes” to having been attacked (Eigenberg, 1990). Thus, the NCS was revised with an expanded question sequence for forced or coerced sexual activity and implemented in 1992, and the name was changed to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). One study of NCVS data found a “gag effect” for women reporting rape depending on the type of interview and whether their husbands were present during the interview (Yu, Stasny, & Li, 2008). More specifically, these statisticians estimated that 86% of women who were raped did not report this victimization to the NCVS interviewer if their spouse was present during the interview, and 36% of raped women did not report it if the interview was over the phone (as compared to in person) (Yu et al., 2008). Although the vast majority of rapes are intraracial (the victim and perpetrator are the same race), the U.S. legal system has followed a legacy since slavery that treats the rape of white women by African American men more harshly than any other kind of rape, with African American men and boys far more likely to be reported to and taken seriously by the CLS (A. Y. Davis, 1981; Freedman, 2013; McGuire, 2011; Tong, 1984; Wriggins, 1983). Wriggins (1983) argues this is a result of patriarchal values (controlling both white women and African American men). Moreover, she points out the numerous consequences of focusing on African American-on-White rapes: (1) It denies all sexual abuses of African American women, (2) it denies the majority of sexual abuses of white women (those perpetrated by White men), and (3) it falsely depicts rape as largely African American on White and stranger oriented (given the highly segregated U.S. society). This focus on African American-on-White rapes discriminates against African American men and leaves out victims who are other women of Color, in addition to African American women. As Wriggins (1983) states that “rape is painful and degrading … regardless of the attacker’s race” (p. 117). Russell’s (1984) San Francisco study, the first major sexual abuse study of a random sample of women, found that 44% of the 930 women (aged 18 and older) had been victims of completed or attempted rape (defined as completed or attempted forced penile–vaginal penetration) at some point in their lives, and 24% had experienced completed rapes. Rates over a person’s lifetime are prevalence rates. In Russell’s (1984) study, White (46%) and African American (44%) women reported similar levels of having experienced a completed or attempted rape, and though few Indigenous women were in the sample (thus the finding must be interpreted cautiously), they reported the highest rate (55%), which, as noted in the previous chapter, is consistently true (Monchalin et al., 2019, p. 212). Thirty percent of the Latina women and 17% of the Asian American women reported completed or attempted rapes (Monchalin et al., 2019, p. 212). Similarly, 53% of women in a study in Charleston County, South Carolina, reported experiencing sexual assault at least once in their lives (S. M. Murphy et al., 1988). A study by Wyatt, Newcomb, and Riederle (1993) involved in-depth interviews with 126 African American women and 122 white women in Los Angeles about both consensual and nonconsensual sex. (The interviewers restricted their definition of nonconsensual sex to vaginal and anal, excluding oral, rapes.) Wyatt and her colleagues found that 22% of the women experienced rape or attempted rape as adults, and the only racial/ethnic difference was that the African American women were more likely to delay disclosing their rape victimization to anyone until years later. However, another study on African American rape survivors did not find a delayed reporting of the rape to others (Neville & Pugh, 1997). The National Women’s Study (National Victim Center, 1992) conducted a probability sample of over 4,000 women in the United States. Rape was defined as force or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina, mouth, or rectum. The researchers projected that over 12 million U.S. women (or 1 in 8) have been the victims of rape at

some point in their lives. A more recent national telephone survey on violence against women conducted in 1995 and 1996, the National Violence against Women (NVAW) Survey, sampled 8,000 women and 8,000 men. The NVAW survey results indicated that 18% of women and 3% of men experienced a completed or attempted rape at some point in their life, with rape defined as forced oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). This is 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men in the United States reporting an attempted or completed rape as a child and/or as an adult. Like Russell (1984), in this study, Asian/Pacific Islander women reported the lowest lifetime rape rates (7%), while American Indian/Alaska Native women reported the highest rates (34%). Eighteen percent of White women, 19% of African American women, and 24% of biracial and multiracial women reported having experienced rape (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). In contrast to prevalence (lifetime) rates, incidence rates are measured as rates within some period, usually a year, prior to the interview or survey. The NCS/NCVS and UCR statistics are incidence rates. Russell (1984) compared her 1974 incidence rates with the 1974 UCR and NCS incidence rates because all of these methods measured rape and attempted rape in the traditional method (penile–vaginal). Russell found that the incidence rate in her study (3% in the prior year) was 13 times greater than the UCR incidence rate and over 7 times greater than the NCS incidence rate. Research indicate wide-ranging estimates of the prevalence and incidence of rape. This is likely due to the varied measures (e.g., do they include anal and oral rapes?), the sampling plans (e.g., are they phone interviews, written surveys, or in-person interviews? are they random community samples?), and the wording (e.g., do they use the word rape?). Although Russell’s (1984) research design is often held up as the ideal, even it is limited because of her restricted definition of rape as penile– vaginal and because her sample excluded such high-risk women as those confined in prison and mental institutions. What is clear from the studies is that rape is a serious social and legal problem that is highly gendered in both its perpetration and victimization and is most frequently committed by someone the victim knows, and often knows very well. Moreover, there is a growing recognition of the prevalence of incapacitated rapes (where the victim is incapacitated by drugs/alcohol). A study of college women by A. L. Brown and her colleagues (2009, p. 905) distinguished incapacitated (victim was too drunk/high to consent), forcible (actual or threatened force was used), and verbally coercive rapes (no actual or threatened force and victim is not too drunk/high to consent) and found that since their 17th birthdays, 47% had experienced verbally coercive rapes, 42% incapacitated rapes, and 11% forcible rapes. Another college study also found drug and alcohol facilitated rapes were more frequent than “forcible rapes” (Lawyer et al., 2010). Baumer, Felson, and Messner (2003) examined the victim–offender relationship (VOR), comparing the NCS with the NCVS; that is, they compared the rates when the national survey always asked whether someone had been raped, instead of only asking if someone had been raped if there was a yes answer to whether someone had been attacked. Baumer and his colleagues found significant differences in the VOR when the rape question is specified: More non-stranger rapes and more of the less violent rapes (as measured by levels of injury, force, and weapons) were reported to the NCVS interviewers when the rape question was asked of everyone. Notably, with the change in questioning, stranger rapes reported to this national survey as a percentage of total rapes reported to the study decreased by two thirds, from 47% in the NCS to 15% in the NCVS (Baumer et al., 2003). The proportion of intimate partner and well-known acquaintance rapes more than doubled with the new questioning. It is clear from these results that the probing questions in the redesigned survey produce a sample of incidents quite different from the NCS in terms of relationship (Baumer et al., 2003, p. 854). Siddique’s (2016) recent analysis of NCVS data from 1992 to 2005, restricted to women 18 years and older, defined sexual abuse to include variables ranging from “rape” to “unwanted sexual contact without force” and “verbal threats” to rape or sexual assault. She found incidence rates (in the last year) of 2.0% acquaintance, 0.8% intimate partner, and 0.6% stranger sexual abuses. Thus, acquaintance sexual abuses were 3.3 times as likely as intimate partner and 2.5 times as likely as stranger sexual abuses. Young women 18 to 29

years old were most at risk, and this was even “more pronounced” for acquaintance and intimate partner than stranger sexual abuses.

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (CSA) Child sexual abuse (CSA) is defined as any use of a child for sexual gratification by another person. It can be perpetrated by an adult, an older or more developmentally advanced child, or even a child of the same age if coercion is present. This broad definition encompasses a very wide range of experiences, from noncontact abuse (voyeurism, exhibitionism) to contact abuse that ranges from genital fondling to violent rape. (Olafson, 2011, p. 8) One of the most disturbing aspects of sexual abuse is the high degree to which children are victims, and this appears to be most hidden when the abuse is incest. CSA was once thought to be a rare occurrence, particularly cases of incest. Psychiatrist and pioneer of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud is partly to blame for the cover-up of CSA. He was amazed at the large numbers of women who reported having experienced sexual abuse as children, most often naming their fathers as the offenders. Although he initially believed his clients, other psychologists doubted him. He then restructured his theories and proposed the Oedipus complex, which is the theory of innate erotic attraction of children to parents (Rush, 1980, p. 84). CSA was reported to social service agencies during the 1800s, but it was not labeled as a social problem until the early 1980s (L. Gordon & O’Keefe, 1984). Almost all research that crosses age groups finds that across gender, race/ethnicity, class/income, and across the world, childhood, adolescence and young adulthood are typically the riskiest ages for sexual abuse victimization (Amir, 1971; Belknap, 1987; Dartnall & Jewkes, 2013; Felson & Cundiff, 2014; National Victim Center, 1992; Russell, 1984; Skogan, 1976; T. J. Taylor et al., 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2000; Wyatt et al., 1993). It is important to recognize consistent patterns: (1) Boys face epidemic risks of CSA; (2) CSA is gendered, with girls experiencing about 5 times as much CSA victimization as boys; and (3) CSA perpetrators are predominantly men/boys. Ninety-five percent of the perpetrators of sexual abuse against girls and approximately 80% of the perpetrators of sexual abuse against boys are male (Finkelhor & Baron, 1986; Russell, 1984). Notably, boys have been more likely than girls to be predatory Catholic priests’ victims, and this is attributed at least in part to that they had more access to boys until the 1990s, when girls’ portion of their sexual abuse rose (K. J. Terry & Freilich, 2012). Table 9.1 shows the most recent data available on this topic, by Finkelhhor, Shattuck, Turner, and Hamby (2014, p. 331), based on lifetime prevalence of CSA based on three national telephone surveys of youth. Among 17-year-olds, 26.6% of girls and 5.1% of boys had been sexually abused at some point, indicating high levels for boys, but girls are 5.2 times as likely to experience CSA as are boys, according to these data. In sum, the victims of CSA tend to be girls, and the abusers tend to be men. Notably, boys are still at a significant risk of sexual abuse, albeit less than girls. Table 9.1 ● U.S. National Study of Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Assault of Children by Gender, Age, and Victim–Offender Relationship (VOR)

Sexual Abuse × VOR Youth Age (Years) % Victimizeda 15 All Perpetrators

16

17

Sexual Abuse × VOR Youth Age (Years) % Victimizeda Girls

16.8

21.7

26.6

Boys

4.3

3.3

5.1

Girls

6.1

7.7

11.2

Boys

1.0

0.6

1.9

Girls

12.1

13.4

17.8

Boys

3.3

2.6

3.1

Girls

3.3

2.3

5.5

Boys

0.0

0.4

0.6

Adult Perpetrators

Youth Perpetratorsb

Family Perpetrators

Acquaintance Perpetrators Girls

14.2

15.4

19.6

Boys

2.3

1.8

3.1

Girls

0.6

2.3

3.0

Boys

0.7

0.3

1.4

Stranger Perpetrators

Abuse With Penetrationc

Sexual Abuse × VOR Youth Age (Years) % Victimizeda Girls

2.4

4.8

6.1

Boys

0.7

0.4

0.6

a

It is unclear how the three studies of the three age groups (N = 2,293) indicate lower levels for boys in subsequent years, such as between ages 15 and 16 for adult perpetrators, acquaintance perpetrators, stranger perpetrators, and abuse with penetration. b Perpetrators aged 17 or younger. c Asked as “sexual intercourse of any kind.” Source: Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.026

A study of adult survivors of CSA found that the main reasons for children’s delayed disclosures of their victimizations were primarily due to the high level of trauma associated with the abuse but also were due to “a belief in the importance of obedience to grownups, mistrust of people, fear of social rejection, and fear of the criminal justice system” (Somer & Szwarcberg, 2001, p. 332). Another reason some children do not report CSA is that they do not remember it; they have repressed it. For example, a study that interviewed 136 women 17 years after they had received medical care for documented CSA (ranging from when they were 10 months to 12 years old for the index abuse) found that over a third did not report the CSA event for which they had been hospitalized, suggesting that a significant proportion of CSA survivors do not remember the abuse (have repressed it), or at least do not disclose it to researchers (L. M. Williams et al., 2000). This study found many additional CSA incidents in addition to the index one for which the women (as girls) had received hospital treatment (L. M. Williams et al., 2000). Thus, when asking adults retrospectively about their childhood sexual abuse experiences, we can expect a huge amount of underreporting given not only the shame and fear but that individuals have quite literally buried the memories. Finally, a study reviewing other studies found children’s physical disabilities (e.g., blindness, deafness, mental disabilities), dependency, institutional care, and communication problems increase their risk of CSA, as does the absence of one or both parents, with girls at a particularly high risk of CSA by stepfathers (Putnam, 2003). This overview did not find class or race/ethnicity to be risk factors for CSA.

COLLEGE SEXUAL ABUSE Until the 1980s, most people assumed that college campuses were a safe place for young women, and if they were raped, it was mostly likely committed by a nonstudent, predatory stranger, off campus when a woman was walking alone or at a bar late at night. Yet even recent research finds that when college women are asked to describe a “typical rape,” many still identify it as “a violent, stranger assault,” even for some who have experienced “hook-up” or “friends with benefits” rape (Littleton, Tabernik, et al., 2009, p. 800). This is certainly not consistent with Littleton and her colleagues’ review of research, which found that less than 5% of self-reported college women rape survivors identify their assailants as “strangers” and about 10% of these rapes include violence or a weapon (Littleton, Tabernik, et al., 2009, pp. 800–801). Acquaintance rapes on college and university campuses, particularly in the form of date and gang rapes, are related to the environment or climate of the campus or organization on campus (i.e., a specific fraternity, dormitory, athletic team) (Benedict, 1998; Black, Belknap, & Ginsburg, 2012; Boswell & Spade, 1996; Crosset, Ptacek, McDonald, & Benedict, 1996; Ehrhart & Sandler, 1985; Eskenazi, 1990; GwartneyGibbs & Stockard, 1989; P. Y. Martin & Hummer, 1998; Sanday, 1990, 1996; M. D. Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997; Warshaw & Koss, 1988). Kick-starting public and

research awareness of this threat of men’s masculinized and sexist peer support on campus resulting in the sexual abuse of college women was Julie K. Ehrhart and Bernice Resnick Sandler’s 1985 report “Campus Gang Rape: Party Games,” followed by Warshaw and Koss’s (1988) book I Never Called It Rape, P. Y. Martin and Martin’s (1989) article “Fraternities and Rape on Campus,” and Sanday’s (1990) book Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. Although not researching fraternity gang rapes, Groth (1979) first identified gang rapes as a malebonding between the rapists, where the instigators place pressure on onlookers to participate and the raping participants feel a need to perform in front of their peers. Also, male athletes’ disproportionately high rates of sexual assaults have been attributed to the intense bonding of living and playing with other male athletes (Eskenazi, 1990). A combination of high-status privilege (often attributed to male athletes) and a pack mentality likely influences male athletes’ rape-prone behavior. It is also disturbing that these onlookers (whether they are fraternity brothers, friends, or so on) usually choose to join in or at least watch but rarely feel an obligation to stop the victimization. The studies on campus rape indicate that women are most at risk of rape in settings where there is general misogyny and devaluing of women (Benedict, 1998; Black et al., 2012; Boswell & Spade, 1996; Crosset et al., 1996; Ehrhart & Sandler, 1985; Eskenazi, 1990; Gwartney-Gibbs & Stockard, 1989; P. Y. Martin & Hummer, 1998; Sanday, 1990, 1996; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997; Warshaw & Koss, 1988). Campus gang rapes can take many forms; however, there is usually a pattern. They tend to take place during parties where there is a free flow of alcohol (and often drugs), the music is loud, and women can be easily controlled and isolated. Gang rapes are particularly humiliating in that these rapes are often watched by others, are photographed, and otherwise occur with a multitude of witnesses who either decide to participate or refuse to take action (Warshaw & Koss, 1988, p. 102). Most victims of such gang rapes transfer to another college or drop out. Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) specify when all-male groups—be they athletic gangs, a group of friends, athletic or other teams, or fraternities—narrowly and traditionally define masculinity and there is a high degree of group secrecy and loyalty, where and girls/women are sexually objectified, there is likely to be a significant risk of woman abuse. Although the focus has been on men in fraternities, research on men studentathletes also identifies this risk factor on some campuses (Benedict, 1998; Boeringer, 1996; Crosset et al., 1996; Eskenazi, 1990). One study of college men found support for the relationship between men’s peer support and the risk of sexually assaulting women (C. A. Franklin, Bouffard, & Pratt, 2012). Although there were no differences between fraternity men and nonfraternity men in terms of self-control levels, relative to nonfraternity men, fraternity men were more likely to report sexually assaulting, to receive more support for using abusive and adverse tactics to gain sexual access than nonfraternity men, to experience more peer pressure from their friends to have sex, to consume more alcohol, and to consume more pornography (Franklin et al., 2012). Taken together, the research on campus rapes indicates that many women are at risk of sexual assault by a far smaller number of men, who perpetrate sexual abuses against a number of victims. Also, it is essential to recognize that not all fraternities or men student-athletic teams adopt the same culture, and these can and do vary significantly on the same campus. Two studies found that while rapes happen frequently in some fraternities on the same campus, in other fraternities they never happen, and still others are somewhere in the middle, indicating the importance in varied climates regarding women across fraternities (Black et al., 2012; Boswell & Spade, 1996). This is likely true regarding student-athletic teams as well. Studies comparing the Greek and non-Greek students on college campuses indicate that (1) Greek men drink significantly more than anyone else (i.e., non-Greek men and women and Greek women), (2) Greek women drink more than non-Greek women, and (3) non-Greek men and Greek women consume similar levels of alcohol (Alva, 1998; Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 1996). A study comparing African American and White fraternities found institutional racism related to aggression and alcohol and drug (ab)use: The African American fraternities did not have their own houses, so they had to rent dance/party halls and hire security guards, which resulted in far more monitoring of African American than of White

fraternities (Black et al., 2012). This lack of monitoring likely impacted the finding that rapes (and drugs and alcohol) were far less common in African American than in White fraternities, yet African American fraternities were far more likely to face sanctions from the police and their universities (Black et al., 2012). Unlike the African American fraternities, some White fraternities had contests marginalizing women and placing marginalized women at risk of rape. For example, one fraternity had a “hogging” activity to see who could sleep with the fattest girl. One of the African American women in this study reported being raped at a White fraternity because of a contest checklist that included having sex with an African American woman (Black et al., 2012). Data in recent years have shown the overwhelming extent to which date (and similar such) rapes occur and impact young women’s lives. One recent study found, as expected, sexually assaulted college women’s health and educational trajectories were often negatively impacted by these victimizations (S. Potter, Howard, Murphy, & Moynihan, 2018).2 To date, most of this research has taken place on college campuses. The few date rape studies conducted including high school students highlight the importance of including this age group. A study of police-reported nonfamily acquaintance rapes in a southeastern U.S. city found that 40% of the victims were under 18, and all these cases of minors were reported by an adult (not the victim) (Bucher & Manasse, 2011, p. 129). In Silverman, Raj, Mucci, and Hathaway’s (2001) study of 4,000 high school girls, 10% of the girls reported sexual abuse by a date. 2

For any survivors reading this, I hope that you can use this finding to both be resilient and pursue your dreams, but also, ideally, receive any health and other support you need. Most college sexual assault is on women as potential victims and assumes or does not measure the assaulters’ gender/sex (Budd, Rocque, & Bierie, 2019, p. 301). Budd and her colleagues’ study of 1993–2014 data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) (data which included men as potential victims) found (1) 94% of the victims were women (6% were men); (2) regardless of gender, most survivors were 19 years old at the time of the assault; (3) there was no racial difference in the racial distribution of the survivors; and (4) regardless of survivor gender, men were far more likely to be the assaulters, and even more so among the women (98%) than men (83%) survivors (Budd et al., 2019). Few college sexual abuse studies examine community college or trans students. Howard, Potter, Guedj, and Moynihan’s (2019) study of a community college included a wide range of sexual abuses and the participants’ gender identities as cis female, cis male, and trans/nonbinary. Trans/nonbinary students reported the highest levels of any type of sexual victimization (73%), followed by women (51%) and men (39%). Students of Color (64%) reported higher sexual abuse victimizations than White students (47%), and “non-heterosexual” students (66%) reported higher levels of sexual victimization than “heterosexual” students (44%). Across survivors’ genders, 91% reported that men were the abusers.

MARITAL/SPOUSAL/PARTNER RAPE “Until the late twentieth century, a husband could compel his wife to have sex with him without fear of consequence…. Marriage served as an absolute defense to rape, and a marital rape exemption existed in the statutory laws of every state” (Klarfeld, 2011, p. 1819). Scholars in the 1980s first addressed the issues surrounding marital rape. Most of the research shows the phenomenon commonly referred to as “marital rape” occurs by husbands against wives, but it is also important to acknowledge that these intimate rapes can happen in cohabiting and same-sex relationships and by former spouses/partners, and be perpetrated by women against men (although the latter is least likely) (Levine, 2018; C. McDonald, 2012). Thus, most scholars include these other relationships under “marital rape” or refer to it as “spousal/partner rape,” “spousal rape,” or “partner rape.” Particularly until more recently, most of this research has been conducted on different-sex couples who were currently or formerly married.

People who believe husbands should have complete say on when, how, and how often they have sex with their wives view “marital rape” as a contradiction in terms. Many media images of marital rape portray it as simply a conflict over sex or an unpleasant but not particularly serious marital squabble that results in a sanitary stereotype of marital rape (Finkelhor & Yllö, 1985, p. 13). Although some marital rapes are nonviolent but highly coercive, marital rapes are also some of the most violent rapes, partly because such men tend to view their wives as their property, they can keep their wives more isolated than most rapists, and they often have a great deal to hold over their wives, such as their children, pets, housing, and financial wellbeing (Bergen, 1996; Finkelhor & Yllö, 1985; Krienert & Walsh, 2018; Russell, 1982; Walker, 1989). Bergen (1996) sums it up best by presenting marital rape as ranging “from assaults that were relatively quick in duration and involved little physical force to sadistic, torturous episodes that lasted for hours” (p. 13). One study found women sexually assaulted by their husbands to be most at risk of being killed by their partners (J. C. Campbell & Soeken, 1999). Bergen (1996) identifies three causes of marital rape: (1) The husband feels entitled to sex with his wife under any (even violent) conditions, (2) the husband uses rape to punish his wife for something she or someone else did (e.g., he is mad at their child), and (3) the husband rapes to assert power over and control his wife. Rape occurs in marriage with alarming frequency (Finkelhor & Yllö, 1985; Russell, 1982, 1984; Shields & Hanneke, 1983). Russell’s (1984, p. 62) random sample found that 12% of the married women had experienced sexual assault by a husband. Another study comparing married couples seeking marital counseling with a community sample of married couples not seeking such counseling found that 5% of the women in the counseling group and 0.5% of the noncounseled community group reported experiencing threatened forced or actual forced sex in the previous year (S.-L. Meyer, Vivian, & O’Leary, 1998). However, turning to husbands’ use of sexual coercion (the pressuring of wives for sex), over one third (36%) of the women in the couples’ counseling group reported sexual coercion, and almost one quarter (23%) of women in the community (noncounseling group) reported sexual coercion in the previous year. Unsurprisingly, men who severely abuse their wives in nonsexual physical ways are also likely to sexually victimize their wives (J. C. Campbell & Soeken, 1999; Finkelhor & Yllö, 1985; S.-L. Meyer et al., 1998; Russell, 1982, 1984; Shields & Hanneke, 1983), as are men who use psychological abuse (S.-L. Meyer et al., 1998). A recent analysis of 2008 to 2012 NIBRS data compared marital to dating intimate partner sexual violence perpetrated by men against women. Compared to the unmarried intimate partner (dating/boyfriend/girlfriend) couples with this violence, married intimate partner (1) abusers and victims were older, (2) victims had significantly more injuries, and (3) sexual violence was “more likely to include sexual penetration, including higher incidence of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object” (Krienert & Walsh, 2018, p. 41). The married (and more seriously abusive) intimate partners were more likely to be White, and the dating (and less seriously abusive) intimate partners were disproportionately African American (Krienert & Walsh, 2018, p. 41). Notably, the authors excluded same-sex partners “due to extremely small numbers at present and the potential for significant differences in incident dynamics” (Krienert & Walsh, 2018, p. 47). An Ohio study of 16 years of unsubmitted sexual assault kits (SAKs) from unadjudicated rapes found over 10.5% were victims who reported rape by current or former intimate partners (about half of each—current and former intimate partners), 53.5% were strangers, and 26.1% were casual/recent acquaintances (Lovell et al., 2019). Over a third of these reported intimate partner sexual abusers were labeled “serial sex offenders” because there was at least one other SAK connected to them (as abusers) and/or they had at least one arrest for a sexually based offense. Compared to the non-intimate partner sexual abusers in this SAK sample, the intimate partner sexual abusers were more likely to use bodily force, less likely to use a weapon, and the victims were more likely to decline to prosecute. Sequencing events in the intimate partner sexual assaults varied, but the primary pattern was the abuser demanding sex, the victim verbally refusing, followed by the abuser using bodily force to “‘get the upper hand’ to sexually assault the victim” (Lovell et al., 2019, p. 18).

Rape by intimates is difficult to uncover. The victims themselves often redefine what they experience, believing it cannot be rape if the offender is an intimate. Given that they are far less likely to acknowledge that it is rape, partner rape survivors are less likely than other rape survivors to blame themselves or their partners for the abuse (Jaffe, Steel, DiLillo, Messman-Moore, & Gratz, 2017). Marital rape victims often attempt to minimize or forget that they were sexually abused by their husbands (Basile, 1999; L. Kelly, 1988; Sheiner, 1987). In fact, many times it is not until years later, looking back at a situation, that a woman recognizes that the forced sex she experienced with her husband was indeed rape (Basile, 1999; L. Kelly, 1988; Sheiner, 1987). Research on marital rape using the NCVS data reports that marital rapes involve not only more frequent sexual assaults than other acquaintance rapes and stranger rapes but also that marital rape survivors are less likely than the survivors of acquaintance and stranger rapes to seek medical, police, or agency help (Bergen, 1996; P. Mahoney, 1999; Rennison, 2003), and the rapes by current or former intimate partners/spouses are least likely to be reported to the police when they are the most violent (Rennison, 2003), indicating that fear as well as shame and denial play significant roles in the nonreporting of marital rapes. While some marital rapes are among the most violent, many marital rapes are more coercive than forceful. Basile (1999) identified five ways in which women “give in to” or acquiesce to unwanted sex with their husbands, ranging from less serious (“I don’t feel like it, but maybe I can”) to more serious (“If I don’t do this ‘voluntarily,’ he’s going to make/rape me”). In this and other studies many women reported that when they tried to resist marital rape, they received worse injuries. Thus, nonresistance was a learned mechanism to minimize the level of injuries accompanying the rape (Basile, 1999; Bergen, 1995, 1996). These studies emphasize that even the less violent/more coercive marital rapes are often symbolic of the potential for rape, gender inequality, and the perceived and real consequences when women do not respond to their husbands’ sexual demands. It is likely that these same behaviors are experienced by men and women in dating relationships. Notably, marital rape was made illegal in many other countries before it was made illegal in the United States (X, 1999). In 1976, Nebraska was the first state to end the marital rape exemption (Finkelhor & Yllö, 1985), and all states ended marital rape exemptions by 1993 (Klarfeld, 2011). However, “by 2002 only twenty-three states had adopted laws that allow for the full prosecution of sexual assault by a spouse” (McMahon-Howard, Clay-Warner, & Renzulli, 2009, p. 505), and the remaining U.S. states had what they label as a “censored” or “partial” marital rape exemption (that curtails full prosecution). Prosecuting marital rape is even more difficult in states with the censored or partial marital rape exemptions requiring shorter reporting periods and shorter sentences (Klarfeld, 2011; McMahon-Howard et al., 2009). Marital rape prosecutions are hampered in all states by the unique stigma attached to marital compared to nonmarital rapes, whereby it is often resented or resisted by overloaded prosecutors and skeptical juries (Klarfeld, 2011, p. 1833).

SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual harassment, a Title IX violation, is legally interpreted as an offense that happens in the workplace (a violation of Title VII) or in the context of education. The unwanted, intrusive, and insulting behaviors included in sexual harassment have the effect of controlling, angering, and humiliating women and girls. Legally, sexual harassment has been identified as potentially occurring in two manners. The first, quid pro quo harassment, involves trading educational or work sustenance or advancement for sexual favors. That is, the victim is promised a grade, a job, a promotion, or some other educational or work favor for complying with a sexual request. The second way sexual harassment has been legally defined as operating is called hostile environment sexual harassment. This type of sexual harassment involves behaviors, decorations, and so on that make a person’s work or educational environment intimidating or offensive. Although any gender can sexually harass, and any gender can be sexually harassed, sexual harassment is a GBA where the victims are predominantly women/girls and the perpetrators are predominantly men/boys. Therefore, I will usually use these designations in examples. Given that intersections of oppression increase individuals’ risks of GBA victimizations, it is not surprising that

research on queer, and especially trans, individuals indicates exceptionally high risks of sexual assaults (Beckman, Shipherd, Simpson, & Lehavot, 2018; Mattocks et al., 2013) and higher rates of sexual harassment among people of Color than White people (Bonnes, 2019; Settles, Buchanan, & Colar, 2012). Till (1980) identified a five-level continuum of sexual harassment that is somewhat similar to the progression in Figure 9.2: (1) Gender harassment involves sexist remarks putting down women but not necessarily sexual in nature; (2) seductive behavior includes behaviors such as sexual advances or requests to discuss the victim’s personal and sexual life; (3) sexual bribery is where sex is solicited with a promise of a reward; (4) sexual coercion involves threatening someone with punishment for failing to comply with a sexual demand; and (5) sexual assaults, gross sexual imposition, and indecent exposures constitute the last and most severe level. For clarification, an example of sexual bribery is where a student is asked out on a date by her professor, indicating that it will help her grade, whereas sexual coercion would be a professor telling a student if she did not go out with him, she would flunk the course. Like all forms of harassment, sexual harassment can have minimal to extreme impacts on victims. It is typically controlling and demeaning but can also be terrifying in some contexts (e.g., a professor, boss, religious leader, or jail staff violently sexually assaulting someone they have power over or demanding sex for a grade, job, etc.). Some of the lower levels of sexual harassment can also be confusing for victims who feel they “should” be flattered by the attention but are not. And this can be reinforced when victims report it and it is minimized or ignored. Although power is key to sexual harassment, McKinney’s (1992) explains how is not always by a person who has power over someone else. She distinguishes three types of sexual harassment. Traditional power sexual harassment is what has been covered, so far, where there is a power relationship and the more powerful person (e.g., professor or boss) sexually harasses the less powerful person (e.g., the student or employee). Peer sexual harassment is where the sexual harasser and victim are peers (e.g., both students, both professors, both bosses, both police sergeants, etc.). Finally, contrapower sexual harassment is where the person harassing has seemingly less power than the person being harassed. Examples of contrapower sexual harassment include an employee sexually harassing a supervisor, a police officer sexually harassing a police captain, and a student sexually harassing a professor. Clearly, most sexual harassment is traditional power harassment, and it typically holds the direst consequences for the victims. The coercion involved in sexual harassment cannot be overstated. Survivors and potential victims may decide to take a less convenient route to work, school, or a social event to avoid sexual harassment on the street, in their school or place of work, and so on. Sexual harassment victims may reasonably fear they will do poorly in a class or be fired or denied promotions at work if they refuse to put up with it or resist it. But putting up with it, including ignoring it (which can be very difficult), can be at the expense of self-respect (Farley, 1978), and survivors can experience extreme stress and health problems from living with it (or PTSD from previous sexual harassment they are now safe from).

Street Harassment As noted, legally sexual harassment occurs in the contexts of employment and education. These definitions omit a significant amount of sexual harassment that has been labeled street harassment, a term coined by feminist legal scholar C. G. Bowman in 1993 and defined as “the harassment women face when they travel along city streets and appear in other public places” (p. 517). Street harassment is often “catcalls” by men at women/girls. An analysis of these catcalls concludes that they are “aberrant compliments at best, and insidious reminders of women’s inequality at worst” (di Gennaro & Ritschel, 2019, p. 1). A recent study that analyzed “a stratified random sample of 334 cases posted to Hollaback!, an online community documenting street harassment,” revealed intricate strategies used by street harassers to use “transportation as weapons to inflict or threaten physical harm, to escape or preserve anonymity, and to pursue targets and as a hunting ground for potential targets.” These harassers “negotiate mobility,” particularly public

transportation and owners’ vehicles “to gain advantage over” their victims (Hutson & Krueger, 2019, p. 767). Scholars of Color have documented how street sexual harassment has had a disproportionate and intersectional impact on women of Color. Legal scholar D. Davis (1994) identifies how “street harassment causes harm by gendering the street” with psychological oppression through patriarchal domination, but she also homes in on African American women’s street harassment experiences as “spirit murder” that “evokes images of slavery—specifically, the cult of true womanhood, the image of African American women as ‘Jezebels’ and property” (p. 136). Camacho-Thompson and Vargas’s (2018) poignant research on Latinx youths involved in organized community activities in a Midwestern Latinx “neighborhood with high levels of violence” found that while both girls and boys reported witnessing the main street “general violence” (e.g., robberies and shootings) as deterrents to their community activities, boys were further threatened by gang intimidation while girls were threatened by sexual harassment (p. 87).

From Professor Anita Hill to Hollywood Survivors are increasingly confronting their harassers, either informally or through university or job policies or laws. The 1991 U.S. Senate confirmation hearings regarding the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court helped advance awareness of sexual harassment more than any event until the start of the #MeToo movement in 2017. During the confirmation hearings, Thomas was confronted with accusations of sexually harassing Anita Hill, a former employee, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Center office. Although Thomas was confirmed, much of the country was moved by Hill’s integrity, and many victims and survivors of sexual harassment came forward to tell their stories as well. The Senate panel interrogating Thomas during the confirmation hearings included Senator Ted Kennedy, a well-known womanizer, who some (not the CLS) hold responsible for the death of a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, in 1969 (“A Walk in Chappaquiddick,” 1969). Another panel member was Senator Joe Biden, the top Democratic contender for U.S. president in 2020, whose very late apology to Professor Hill when he began running in 2019, did not go well (Stolberg & Hulse, 2019). The irony of all White men grilling Thomas about Hill, both of whom are African American, had a powerful impact on the public, many of whom were glued to their televisions during the hearings. This attention to sexual harassment was unprecedented until the New York Times published a story in 2017 documenting film producer Harvey Weinstein’s horrific and decades-long sexual harassment of women actors, an apparently well-known “secret” in Hollywood (Dugan, 2020).

Sexual Harassment Victim–Offender Relationships Given that, legally, sexual harassment only occurs in employment and education, it is not surprising most of the research examines sexual harassment in these contexts. Thankfully, street harassment research is expanding. Probably the largest focus of sexual harassment research is on women college students (Aizenman & Kelley, 1988; Belknap & Erez, 2013; N. T. Buchanan, Bergman, Bruce, Woods, & Lichty, 2009; Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998; DeFour, 1990; Huerta et al., 2006; Kalof et al., 2001; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Lott, Reilly, & Howard, 1982; Ménard, Hall, Phung, Ghebrial, & Martin, 2003; Paludi et al., 2006; Shelton & Chavous, 1999; Warshaw & Koss, 1988; Yoon, Funk, & Kropf, 2010), who not only experience a great deal of sexual harassment, but given that most researchers are college professors, they are relatively easily available study participants. There is legitimate concern that other women of the traditional college age are also at risk of sexual harassment (and rape), and such research focus has an elitist focus (as clearly there is a class bias on who attends college). There is far less research addressing sexual harassment in Grades K–12 (for a review, see Charmaraman et al., 2013). Exceptions include a study that found “the majority of middle school students are both sexual harassment targets and witnesses” (Lichty & Campbell, 2012, p. 414), and a study of seventh graders that found sexual harassment, bullying, and dating violence “do not emerge in isolation,

but rather, in concert with other forms of relationship aggression” (S. Miller et al., 2013, p. 614). A study of high school students who worked part-time found that about two thirds of the girls and one third of the boys reported sexual harassment at their workplace (Fineran, 2002). About 20% of the harassment was committed by supervisors, another 20% by others at their workplace (e.g., customers), and 60% by their coworkers. Consistent with other research comparing gender on victimization, the girls reported higher levels of threats and fear than the boys who reported workplace sexual harassment (Fineran, 2002). One detailed, broad-based study identified workplace sexual harassment (WSH) syndrome as when sexual harassment “behaviors are severe or pervasive and concurrent in time and place” (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004, p. 68). This study is unique in that it included men in the sample, and distinguished between sexual harassment at jobs during and since high school. Adult women were most subjected to sexual harassment, but high rates of adolescent WSH and clear WSH syndromes occurred across age and gender. The findings indicate that WSH derives from power and masculinity for both males and females, occurs across age groups, is a general social phenomenon, and is a gendered expression of power (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004, p. 88). Financially vulnerable females and males were the most subjected to WSH. Although the quantitative part of the study did not code for the WSH perpetrators’ gender, the qualitative data indicated that almost all were men (C. Uggen, personal communication, October 14, 2005). A setting that is usually not classified as work or education but which has also been found to include what fits as sexual harassment, albeit not always legally, is religious settings (but not including the Catholic priest predatory child sexual abusers)3 (Majka, 1991; McDuff, 2008; Murphy-Geiss, 2007; Whitson, 1997). This body of research largely documents the sexual harassment by religious leaders (who are mostly men) on primarily women worshippers but also finds most men who are victims of sexual harassment in the context of religion are abused by men. One study on women religious leaders while at work found they are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment when they are young and single (McDuff, 2008). 3

Brief reference to this is made earlier in this chapter in the section on child sexual abuse (CSA). This section focuses on adult sexual harassment in religious settings. A growing body of research is documenting extreme sexual harassment, including rape, primarily of women but also of some men in the U.S. military (Beckman et al., 2018; Bonnes, 2017, 2019; Brownstone et al., 2018; Di Leone et al., 2013; Gradus et al., 2013, 2017; Mattocks et al., 2013; Pulverman et al., 2019; Settles et al., 2012; Settles, Buchanan, Yap, & Harrell, 2014). This body of research often finds strong intersections with race and sexuality, whereby the more members of the military are marginalized by gender, race, sexuality, and their intersections, the more at risk they are for sexual harassment (including rape) (Bonnes, 2017, 2019; Mattocks et al., 2013; Settles et al., 2012). A study of trans veterans found 17% overall experienced military sexual assault, and trans men were twice (30%) as likely to report this victimization as trans women (15%) (Beckman et al., 2018). Fitzgerald (2019) rightly emphasizes how many of the women most vulnerable to sexual harassment remain invisible in the #MeToo era, specifically “women in lowincome housing, agricultural workers, janitorial workers and restaurant workers” (p. 5). She summarizes research on these populations and identifies unique forms of sexual harassment they experience, such as “home invasions” of women in lowincome housing, described as “instances in which the landlord or property manager would enter the victim’s home uninvited and unannounced, using his key to access the apartment when the victim is home alone; such entries are often the prelude to sexual assault” (Fitzgerald, 2019, p. 6).

Impacts of Sexual Harassment Many people view sexual harassment as harmless or even flattering. Survivors often feel demeaned, experienced as “cheap” or like a “piece of meat” or a “sexual object.” One article on sexual harassment on the street states that “the message is not that

you are attractive enough to make a man lose his self-control but that the public realm belongs to him and you are there by his permission as long as you follow his rules and as long as you remember your place” (Benard & Schlaffer, 1997, p. 396). The threat behind sexual harassment cannot be minimized. Victims are often unsure as to what degree the harasser will go to in the attempt to demean, control, or harm them, nor how the harasser will respond to being confronted. If she confronts the harasser for whistling, might she end up being physically sexually assaulted? The severity of sexual harassment is witnessed in a study where more than 1 in 5 women’s work harassers raped them (Schneider, 1991). Research documents that depression, PTSD, and suicide thoughts and attempts (sometimes that result in death) are the results of some survivors’ experiences with sexual harassment (Beckman et al., 2018; Gradus et al., 2013, 2017; Gross et al., 2020; Reed et al., 2019).

SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM (CLS) Sexual abuse survivors often recognize shortly after their victimizations, if they have not thought of it before, that they live in a victim-blaming and rape culture, where they will likely fare far worse with the CLS responses to their victimization than the responses from their friends and family (Kaiser et al., 2017; Ullman, 2010; Whalley & Belknap, 2013). Although they may not use exactly the same language, they too often accurately suspect that their cases will be determined by CLS officials (i.e., police, prosecutors, juries, judges) according to stereotypes of whether they are “real” or “genuine” victims (Estrich, 1987; George & Spohn, 2018; Lord & Rassel, 2000). Given the stigma and victim-blaming associated with being a sexual abuse survivor, it is not surprising that many survivors self-blame and/or want to keep the abuse secret. Moreover, given that most sexual abuses have no witnesses except for the survivor and abuser, it is usually “easy” for survivors to keep it a secret. Sadly but not surprisingly, a study of imprisoned women survivors of rape (that occurred prior to incarceration) found they did not report their victimizations due to their adherence to “rape myths that involved blaming themselves for the rape, fearing not being believed, believing that familiar perpetrators cannot be rapists, and questioning whether the event was really a rape” (Heath et al., 2011, p. 596). Feminist scholars document the rigor, successes, and severely unfinished and sometimes thwarted goals of the second wave of the women’s movement (in the 1960s and 1970s) regarding enacting legislation and policies directed at rape reform (to facilitate survivors’ police and court experiences and the likelihood of justice) (Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; Levine, 2018; Lord & Rassel, 2000; Spohn & Tellis, 2012; Tuerkheimer, 2017). First, the thwarted and unfinished goals are in part due to “legal personnel exercis[ing] discretion in the implementation of the new laws” (Konradi & Burger, 2000, p. 352). Second, many persecutors’ preoccupation with their casewinning record will not take sexual abuse cases that do not fit the stereotypic “real” rapes with “credible” victims. Indeed, denying that experiences were rape, victimblaming, and other harsh CLS responses to sexual abuse survivors have been so commonplace as to label some CLS responses “the second rape” and to refer to these survivors being “twice victimized,” once by their abusers and again by the CLS (Allison & Wrightsman, 1993; R. Campbell, 2008; R. Campbell et al., 2001). This and the next chapter will identify ways in which the CLS is still in need of significant changes (Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; Konradi, 2007; Konradi & Burger, 2000; Levine, 2018; Sheehy, 2000; Spohn & Tellis, 2012; Tuerkheimer, 2012, 2012; Valentine et al., 2019).

Police, Prosecutor, and Court Obsessions With Survivors’ Characteristics and Behaviors Labels used to describe sexual abuse survivors’ credibility, resistance (during the abuse/assault), accountability, and moral character are closely enmeshed with each other in determining consent versus abuse (was this sexual abuse/rape?) and victimblaming. Victim credibility is often meted out in extralegal factors: victim resistance

during the abuse, victim demographic characteristics, and victim moral character. Victims are considered more credible when they physically resist during the abuse; had not used drugs/alcohol; are White, wealthy, nonimmigrant, English-speaking, and children; and are not drug addicts, sex workers, and individuals with reputations of numerous sexual partners. Although there is some indication that with the #MeToo movement and CLS changes those sexual abuse victims most disenfranchised by race and “moral” character are making greater headway into the CLS as “legitimate” victims, there is still much room for improvement. But what is most enraging about the CLS focus on sexual abuse victims’ so-called credibility, accountability, and moral character, is that it is too often examined far more than sexual abusers’ credibility, accountability, and moral character. For example, the injustices of when victims’ resistance is more important than abusers’ force, coercion, and exploitation; and when victims’ drug/alcohol use makes them more accountable than the abusers (for the sexual abuse). Victim resistance is primarily assessed through their physical resistance, but it may also include verbal resistance (e.g., saying “no” or “stop”). Many survivors, particularly ones who have had no self-defense training, report “freezing” and not being able to resist (physically and/or verbally) (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Bucher & Manasse, 2011; N. K. Cook & Messman-Moore, 2018; Pinciotti & Seligowski, 2019). And, of course, some victims cannot resist, even verbally, such as survivors marginalized by language (do not speak English), disabilities (e.g., extreme mental or physical disabilities), being in a coma or anesthetized, and children not old enough to talk. Sheehy (2000) points out the injustice and irony when victims purposely “doped” in drug-facilitated rapes are seen as less credible by the courts because they were too intoxicated to resist. Survivors’ physical injuries are also often required to “prove” the sex was nonconsensual, yet as noted earlier, much of sexual abuse is not violent, per se. A hospital study found only about half of rape victims evidenced genital injury (McGregor, Du Mont, & Myhr, 2002). Although removing victims’ resistance requirements was a central goal of U.S. feminists’ rape law reform, Levine’s (2018) analysis of U.S. rape laws found a pattern whereby these newer laws covertly reinforce requiring victim resistance through code-speak about victim accountability. More specifically, “repeated references to physical force and limited references to voluntary intoxication place implicit burdens on victims to monitor their own behavior and to ward off potential assailants who used little or no physical force against them” (Levine, 2018, p. 336). Additionally, the use of rape myths and extralegal factors in CLS determinations of whether a reported rape was “real” or “genuine” are filtered through the quality of evidence. When there is strong evidence of sexual assault, CLS decision-makers are less likely to use extralegal factors (George & Spohn, 2018). Victims’ testimony, however, is usually “the only evidence,” particularly in the cases with delayed reporting (which are predominantly intimate partner and acquaintance rapes), and this is when victims’ credibility is most judged through such extralegal variables as their intoxication (George & Spohn, 2018, p. 1286). Legal scholar Tuerkheimer (2017) identifies credibility discounting as the dominant response to rape survivors “at every stage of the criminal process,” which is discrimination that “effectively denies [them] the protective resources of the state” (p. 2).

Survivors’ Participation With the CLS GBA survivor “cooperation” with the CLS is often a cornerstone of evaluating their accountability and credibility, which we will see in the next chapter is even more assessed of intimate partner abuse (IPA) survivors. But there are many reasons that rape and IPA survivors do not participate (a less pejorative and condescending term than cooperate) with the CLS, including their own adherence to rape myths (and blaming themselves) and their realistic fears of how they may be treated by CLS officials (M. Alderden & Long, 2016; Hansen et al., 2018; Heath et al., 2011; Huemmer et al., 2019; Kaiser et al., 2017; Spohn et al., 2001). Notably, a NIBRS study found sexual assault victims were less likely than robbery victims, but equally likely as physical assault victims, to cooperate with the police (Felson & Lantz, 2016). One study found that rape survivors are less likely to participate with police investigations the higher their levels are of “psychological distress in the acute phase

following the assault” (Hansen et al., 2018, p. 684). Kaiser and colleagues (2017) identify two sexual assault survivors’ costs of cooperation with the CLS: (1) financial and time costs (e.g., time taken from paid work), and (2) the “potential damage to their reputation and perceptions that others will view them as blameworthy or culpable in their own victimization” (pp. 304–306). Given that the survivor participation is usually key in sexual abuse police and prosecutor decision-making and in court convictions (George & Spohn, 2018), and that these survivors are more likely to participate with the CLS when they have evidence such as sexual assault kits (SAKs) (Kaiser et al., 2017), both collecting better evidence and survivor participation are not only important but reinforce each other and the quality of the case.

Sexual Assault Kits (SAKs) Indeed, sexual assault kits (abbreviated as SAKs, and often referred to as “rape kits”) are significant to CLS responses, but some CLS officials are curtailed when funds are not made available for the analysis of them. SAKs are used by medical personnel to collect and submit sperm, DNA, injury reports, and so on, as forensic evidence. Given that the strength of evidence is often key in sexual abuse police investigations, prosecutor decision-making (i.e., pressing charges), and convictions (George & Spohn, 2018), evidence such as SAKs can also be instrumental in encouraging survivor participation with the CLS, which also impacts case outcomes (George & Spohn, 2018; Kaiser et al., 2017). A large and recent SAK study in a western U.S. state found that police only submitted 38% of SAKs to the state’s crime laboratory. Moreover, 23% were submitted within a year of the assault and 15% were submitted more than a year after the assault and only after “media and community pressure” to get them out of storage and submitted (Valentine et al., 2019, p. 3548). This study found the biggest overall predictor of SAK submission to labs was the location of the law enforcement department, indicating discrimination for survivors based on their case’s police department. But it also holds promise that police departments who are invested in rape cases can change climates to expect such lab submissions. Other than department, the most significant predictor of SAK lab submission was survivor gender4; although only 6% of the victims were male, male survivors’ SAKs were 46% more likely to be submitted. The other significant predictors in SAK lab submission, in order, were when (1) there was suspected drug facilitation, cases were 25% more likely; (2) the survivor used drugs prior to the assault, cases were 22% less likely, (3) the survivor bathed/showered after the rape, cases were 17% less likely, (4) the survivor had a physical or mental impairment/disability, cases were 17% less likely; and (5) the survivor and suspect knew each other, cases were 16% less likely (Valentine et al., 2019, p. 3562). Of these significant predictors of SAK lab submission, only whether there was suspicion that the rape was drug facilitated was a legal factor; thus, extralegal characteristics (including victim behavior) dominated police decisions on whether to submit SAKs to labs. 4

Males were 6% of the victims (females were 94%).

Survivors’ Wishes and Rights Herman’s (2005) study of rape survivors’ “wishes and needs” from the CLS “are often diametrically opposed to the requirements of the legal proceedings” (p. 574). She found the survivors and their loved ones seek validation, not just from the legal proceedings but also from their communities; an apology from the abusers; and for the abusers’ accountability. Of the four basic CLS goals (retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation), the one most generally endorsed by the survivors and their loved ones was incapacitation. However, most survivors preferred ongoing community supervision or civil restraining orders over jail or prison for their abusers (Herman, 2005). Studies found that some rape survivors do not want their cases prosecuted because they are worried about how defense attorneys, judges, juries, and even the prosecutors may treat them; and/or they have injuries or other problems caused by the assault which require their focus, such as being pregnant from the assault (and decisions to abort) (Konradi, 2007; S. B. Murphy et al., 2014; Spohn et al., 2001). But research also indicates some rape victims do not want to prosecute because they “only” want the police “to warn the suspect or keep an eye on him,”

were afraid of reprisals from the abuser, and/or if an intimate partner, wanted help removing him from her home (S. B. Murphy et al., 2014, p. 149). Understandably, survivors who do not want to prosecute are further stressed when prosecutors pressure them to do so (Konradi, 2007; Spohn et al., 2001). Recall the feminist criticisms of “carceral feminists” discussed in Chapter 1—when CLS punitive responses to GBAs rely on punishment from a system that is often sexist, racist, classist, and so on, and does little to “advance women’s liberation” (Whittier, 2016, p. 792). The nothing-or-incarceration (mostly nothing) approach prominent in rape case court outcomes typically fails to address the structural or individual problems creating a rape and GBA culture, such as promoting actual understanding of, or change in, gender-based abusers. Importantly, police, prosecutors, rape victim advocates, and social supporters (e.g., friends and family) who pressure sexual abuse survivors to participate in the CLS, although usually wellmeaning, can contribute to survivors’ feelings of loss of power and agency, as well as their feelings of guilt and self-blame. It is important to recognize that some prosecutors drop rape cases for acceptable reasons, including that victims did not want to pursue them (Spohn et al., 2001).

In-Prison Sexual Abuse Researching the sexual abuse of prisoners and the official carceral responses to them is difficult, and thus rare, given the extreme isolation of those in in these institutions and the control of the staff and administration. An exception is Kubiak (2017) and her colleagues’ detailed study of 179 women survivors of in-prison sexual abuse. First, they identify U.S. data that (1) over 80,000 U.S. prisoners are sexually victimized annually, (2) half of the perpetrators are prison staff (the rest are other prisoners), and (3) only 8% of all the cases are reported to prison officials. Their study of incarcerated women survivors of in-prison sexual abuse found that those with physical injuries (thus more traditional credibility) were more likely to report to prison authorities, while they were less likely to report when they were older, sexually assaulted more than once, their perpetrator had multiple victims, they had over 12 years left to serve of their sentence, and the abuse began in more recent years. The authors speculate that the survivors were less likely to report a perpetrator who abused them multiple times because of these prisoners’ inherent deprivation, that these were staff providing them with some resource for the sex, however illegal and impossibly consensual. Additionally, these women may have been less likely to view the exchange of sex for resources as abuse or rape. Kubiak and colleagues (2017) speculate that perpetrators of multiple victims are less likely to be reported because “being aware of the other incidents of misconduct … [the victims] may perceive reporting as futile” (p. 371). Clearly, as the authors emphasize, these last two findings —that prison sexual abusers who repeatedly abuse the same woman and those abusing multiple women are less likely to be reported (than those who “only” abuse a victim once or “only” abuse one victim, respectively)—are especially concerning. Kubiak and colleagues’ findings are consistent with the classic book All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons (Human Rights Watch, 1996).

The Myths Surrounding False Rape Charges False rape charges have a long history fraught with sexism, racism, classism, and discrimination against sex workers and other “nonconforming” women/girls, such as those who hitchhike, use alcohol and/or drugs, have reputations for numerous sexual partners, and are queer—although we should certainly question how “nonconforming” these are (Belknap, 2010b; Du Mont & Myhr, 2000; Lafree et al., 1985; Ledoux & Hazelwood, 1985; Tuerkheimer, 2017). False rape charges are also very much entangled in rape myths (Belknap, 2010b; Ledoux & Hazelwood, 1985) and continue to be a “default” by many police and prosecutors (Tuerkheimer, 2017). Certainly being wrongly reported as a rapist (or other sexual abuser) is horrific, but there is a disproportionate societal and CLS concern surrounding false rape charges: The vast majority of sexual abuses (and, thus, abusers) are never reported to the police, and this is particularly pronounced among those extremely marginalized by age (e.g., infants and other children), severe mental and/or physical disability, incarceration, being sex workers, being undocumented, and so on. Moreover, when the sexual

abuser is a family member, spouse/partner, or authority figure, victims are less likely, and generally able, to report. Even when we use the statistics with the most latitude, that as many as 5% of rape cases are “false charges” and as many as 35.2%5 of rape survivors report to the police, that at most, 1.8% of all rapes are false reports, which is likely a very high estimate given the other points made in this chapter. Finally, although we know that sexual abuse survivors are far more likely to report these victimizations to researchers than the police, it is still important to remember not all of these survivors will even tell researchers (Russell, 1984; Yu et al., 2008). 5

According to the highest rate, that found by Bosick et al. (2012) using 1992 to 2000 NCVS data. Finally, although much of this section and the next chapter report CLS officials’ victimblaming and otherwise disturbing practices in processing sexual abuse cases, it is important not to essentialize police, prison staff, prosecutors, judges, and so on. In addition to research verifying some CLS personnel who are very dedicated to sexual abuse cases and sexual abuse victims (Balfour et al., 2018; Long, 2018; Lord & Rassel, 2000), it is important to remember that CLS improvements can be effective and it is necessary to continue work toward and expand these improvements (Rich, 2019). A recent Canadian study of victim impact statement found some judges have reframed women intoxicated at the time of their rape victimizations as especially “vulnerable” rather than “reckless” or “irresponsible,” and thus sentence men who rape intoxicated women more harshly than if the women were not intoxicated (Balfour et al., 2018).

The Police Survivors Reporting Sexual Abuse to the Police Not only do the police serve as most survivors’ first contact with the CLS, but survivors are usually dependent on the police to make the case for them. Historically, and still, unlike other survivors, sexual abuse survivors must often prove nonconsent, with the assumption that most women/girls lie when reporting rape and other sexual abuse (Spencer, 1987, p. 56). Thus, it is not surprising that sexual assaults have been identified as the least likely of all violent offenses to be reported to the police (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Rennison, 2010). Indeed, Rennison’s (2010, p. 395) analysis of 14 years of NCVS data found the three situational contexts of violent crimes that are least likely to be reported to the police are that the crime is rape/sexual assault, the victim is a woman/girl, and the perpetrator is unarmed, which describes most sexual abuse cases. Feminists’ efforts to change the CLS responses to sexual abuse/rape in the 1960s and 1970s appear to have “worked” in terms of research documenting increases in the rate that rape survivors report these victimizations to the police (Bachman & Paternoster, 1994; Baumer et al., 2003; Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; DuMont et al., 2003). Research reports a wide range in percentages of rape survivors reporting to the police (5% to 35%), with the lower percentages more likely in studies of college women, but otherwise, the higher rates are more common in more recent years (Baumer et al., 2003; Bosick et al., 2012; Carbone-Lopez et al., 2016; B. Fisher et al., 2000; B. S. Fisher et al., 2013; Lisak et al., 2010; Russell, 1984; Warshaw & Koss, 1988; Weiss, 2010). The increase in police-reported sexual assaults over time has been attributed to increases in third parties’ (Baumer et al., 2003)6 and acquaintance (non-stranger) victim–offender relationship (VOR) reports, although there is still a tendency for disproportionate reporting of stranger rapes (Baumer et al., 2003; ClayWarner & Burt, 2005; Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009). The increased reporting is also likely due to sexual abuse victims who have historically been the most disenfranchised and blamed increasingly reporting their cases. For example, a Canadian study found unprecedented empowerment by rape survivors who were lesbians, sex workers, “psychiatrized” women, low-income women, hitchhikers, and those who frequent nightclubs, and/or who have been drinking, to report to the police

(DuMont et al., 2003). It is likely that the #MeToo movement will further increase survivors’ reporting and improve CLS responses, particularly to acquaintance rapes, and hopefully those most disenfranchised (e.g., sex workers, undocumented people, etc.). 6

Regarding whether it is the actual survivor or someone else who reports the rape to the police, few studies collect these data, but one such study of nonfamily acquaintance rapes found half were reported by relatives, 43% by a friend, and only 7% reported by the victim (Bucher & Manasse, 2011). One study found 17% of the rapes reported to the police originated from hospital staff (and did not break down the remainder of the police-reporters) (Alderden & Long, 2016). Research on sexual abuse survivors’ age is sometimes reported as related to police reporting, but it is somewhat inconsistent. Children’s sexual abuses appear to be the most police-reported, and these are likely by third parties (Bucher & Manasse, 2011). Adult sexual abuse survivors are more aware of the potential of negative police responses (Anders & Christopher, 2011; Ullman, 2007). Bosick and colleagues (2012) found that among all age groups, young adults 16 to 24 years old were the least likely to report to police. Consistent with the victims’ credibility, accountability, resistance, and moral character focus explained previously in this section, even some relatively recent research reports that victims were more likely to report to the police when they physically resisted during the abuse (Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Pinciotti & Seligowski, 2019), had not consumed alcohol/drugs (Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005); and when the abuser used weapons or caused physical injuries (Alderden & Long, 2016; Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005; Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009). Pinciotti and Seligowski’s (2019) analysis of 7 years of NCVS data (2010–2016) found sexual assault victims were least likely to report their crimes to the police when they “froze” during the attack, and 38% froze during the attack. The authors speculate that “victims who do not forcefully resist may question whether they were to blame for not actively trying to stop the attack from occurring” (Pinciotti & Seligowski, 2019, p. 14). One study of 544 sexual assaults reported to a midwestern U.S. police department found that 48.5% continued participating with the police in the investigation for the prosecution, and those who continued participating were more likely those “whose assaults reflect stereotypical ‘real’ sexual assault stereotypes (i.e., involve strangers, weapons, and injury)” (Alderden & Long, 2016, p. 823). Unexpectedly, and encouragingly, both whether the survivor or a hospital staff member initiated the police report and whether the survivor had used drugs/alcohol were unrelated to survivors’ participation with police and prosecutors (Alderden & Long, 2016, p. 827). Rape survivors may also choose not to report due to an “agentic” reconstructing the rape as their “old self” and this would not happen to them again with who they are now (consistent with the just world hypothesis), and “pursuing legal justice would force them to reenact an ‘old’ self that cannot be disentangled from the rape” (Huemmer et al., 2019, p. 435). As stated, racism is intricately enmeshed in the history of rape, concerning who can legally be victimized, who can legally be considered a rapist, and the processing by the various arms of the CLS (e.g., Davis, 1981; Freedman, 2013; McGuire, 2011). The legacies of this racism are strong and too often continuing in CLS responses. An extensive review of rape research found a strong pattern that among sexual abuse survivors, African American are significantly less likely than White survivors to report their victimizations to the police and that White survivors may be more likely to report Black than White assailants (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009). Other scholars note African American sexual abuse survivors’ even greater reluctance is based in part on the perception that police are generally unresponsive to rape victims, but also due to concern about police hostility to them as Black women/girls; this perception was most predominant among Black women/girls living in predominantly Black neighborhoods (Neville & Pugh, 1997; Pierce-Baker, 1998; Washington, 2001). This is supported by a North Carolina study that found police were less likely to investigate rape reports in “dangerous locations” (Lord & Rassel, 2000, p. 85), which often translates in racist code-speak as “African American neighborhoods.” Notably, a study of African American women rape survivors found that although all reported hostile police treatment, some indicated they probably would report future sexual abuse to the police, if only to get something on record, not

because they felt they would be helped (Washington, 2001, p. 1279). Similarly, a study of women offenders who were rape survivors, 60% of whom were African American, found women who did not report to the police “thought the police were unlikely to do anything to help them” more than they “viewed their relationship with the police as inherently antagonistic” (Carbone-Lopez et al., 2016, p. 389). An analysis of 15 years of NCVS data found American Indian and Alaskan Native women were more likely than White or African American women to report their sexual assaults to the police, but “fewer than one in five (17%) made the report herself” and arrests/charges were far less likely for cases involving American Indian and Alaskan Native (13%), than those involving African American (35%) and White women (32%) (Bachman et al., 2010). Finally, less research has been conducted on Latinas and sexual abuse survivors’ reporting, but suggests that overall, Latinas are as likely as non-Latinas to have their victimizations reported to the police (by themselves or someone else) (Bosick et al., 2012; Hart & Rennison, 2003; Rennison, 2007, 2010).

Police Responses to Sexual Abuse The first step for official reporting of sexual abuse cases, as was just covered, is whether it is reported to the police (by the victim or someone else). The next steps are founding and clearing (including arresting). When a crime is “cleared” by the police it means that the suspect was arrested, or the crime is considered solved because the suspect has been identified but beyond the ability of the police to arrest (e.g., s/he is dead, has left the country, etc.) (Addington & Rennison, 2008; T. J. Taylor et al., 2009).

Police Unfounding and the Highly Exaggerated False Rape Reports. “Case founding refers to the initial determination by the police officers that the reported incident constituted criminal sexual assault as defined by state statute” (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a, p. 530). Unfounding, or what is left over after “founding” a case, is a process largely unique to sexual abuse victimization reports; it is when police (and sometimes prosecutors) dismiss the case because there is not sufficient evidence or they believe this is a “false charge”—the “victim” is lying about having been sexually abused (Belknap, 2010b; Mustaine et al., 2013). Significantly, rapes unfounded by the police typically do not appear in official statistics of victimization (such as the UCR), thereby increasing the invisibility of many serious sexual abuses. Studies since the beginning of the 21st century indicate that 6% to 10% of sexual assault cases are unfounded by the police (Alderden & Ullman, 2012b; Du Mont & Myhr, 2000; Mustaine et al., 2013). Although sparse research addresses factors related to unfounding, one such study of Massachusetts forensic medical examinations found few differences between childhood (under age 12), young adult (12–15 years old), older adolescent (16–17 years old), and adult (18 years and older) except that none of the childhood cases resulted in unfounding whereas about a third of the three other age groups’ sexual victimization reports were unfounded groups (Cross & Schmitt, 2019, p. 107).

Police Clearance of Sexual Abuse Victimization Reports. T. J.Taylor and colleagues’ (2009) analysis found that among violent index crimes, rape cases had the lowest clearance rate (17%). Research since the turn of this century indicates that 17% to 50% of police-reported rapes result in arrests (Bucher & Manasse, 2011; Du Mont & Myhr, 2000; Mustaine et al., 2013; Pinciotti & Seligowski, 2019; T. J. Taylor et al., 2009; Ylang & Holtfreter, 2019),7 and this rate appears to be increasing over time.8 Studies indicate that the likelihood of arrests/being cleared are related to most of the same factors that concern rape survivors in their decisions of whether to report to the police. Arrests/clearances were more likely when the survivor

physically resisted (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a), the survivor had injuries/more indication of suspects’ violence (Pinciotti & Seligowski, 2019; Roberts, 2008; Wentz, 2019; Ylang & Holtfreter, 2019),9 the survivor was White (relative to Black) (T. J. Taylor et al., 2009), the survivor was older (Roberts, 2008),10 the assault was a completed (rather than an attempted) rape (T. J. Taylor et al., 2009), the survivor wanted the suspect arrested (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a), higher quality evidence (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019), a SAK (Wentz, 2019), victims reported in a “timely” manner (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019) (which was viewed as a credibility issue), victims were deemed more “credible”(Meeker et al., 2019). Arrests/clearances were less likely when there were discrepancies in the survivors’ statements (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a), the victim did not “cooperate” with the police (Meeker et al., 2019), and the victim used alcohol/drugs (Ylang & Holtfreter, 2019). A study of youth and adult sexual assault investigators found “victim credibility,” which included “victim behavior at the time of the victimization and victim moral character,” was the most identified reason for deciding to arrest and how to present to prosecutors (B. A. Campbell, Menaker, & King, 2015, p. 29). 7

Ylang and Holtfreter (2019) reported one of the higher rates, 45%, which is likely in part due to their sample coming from SAK collected rape cases. 8

This chapter has reported unfounding and arrest rates that do not sum to 100% because the remainder of the cases include where the suspect is never identified or the victim decides not to go through with the case. 9

This is not to discount that rape is by nature injurious, but rather that when studies indicate physical injuries were reported by an official. 10

Age was measured as a ratio-level variable, not broken down into age groups like many of the other studies reported for Roberts (2008). Some studies had unexpected findings. Pinciotti and Seligowski’s (2019) large NCVS study found whether sexual assault survivors resisted or “froze” was unrelated to the police responses once physical injury was included in the model. One study found survivor injury, survivor race, whether a witness was present, whether a SAK was completed, whether a weapon was used, and survivor injury were unrelated to the likelihood of arrest (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a). Another found no differences in police clearance based on the victims’ gender; rape victims of Color were more likely than White victims, and younger victims were more likely than older victims, to have their cases cleared; and the presence of a weapon decreased the odds of police clearance (Roberts, 2008). Also unexpectedly, Mustaine and colleagues (2013) found “communities with higher levels of concentrated disadvantage, immigration concentration, and residential instability are less likely to have sexual assault deemed unfounded by law enforcement” (p. 91). Encouragingly, more recent studies are more commonly finding the VOR (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019) and victims’ and suspects’ race unrelated to the decision to arrest (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019; Ylang & Holtfreter, 2019). It may be that departments are working to be less racist in these arrests and to take acquaintance rapes as seriously as stranger rapes, and it may be that the multivariate models are including more variables. Ylang and Holtfreter’s (2019) recent study found stranger VORs were significantly less likely to be arrested, and by a wide margin. In a midwestern U.S. study of three police departments in the same county, cases were significantly more likely to be referred on to prosecutors when the police interviewed suspects and invested a moderate to above average effort in investigating cases, and there was a medical forensic exam (Kelley & Campbell, 2013). The victims’ and suspects’ races and ages were all unrelated to the police decision to refer the case to prosecution, and these factors were also unrelated to victims’ decisions to withdraw their cases from prosecutorial consideration. Police did not interview suspects in 41% of the cases, and when police did interview suspects, the cases were about 3 times as likely to be referred to prosecutors (Kelley & Campbell, 2013).

The Court Process, or Whose Trial Is It Anyway? Assuming that the a sexual abuse suspect has been identified, cleared, and charged by the police, it is now the prosecutor’s (also known as district attorney’s) turn to determine whether the “complainant” is “really a victim,” and if so, that the suspect is “really” her abuser, and, finally, whether the case is “worth” the prosecutor’s time. Regarding the last point, “prosecutors recognize that rape myths are widely held and are likely to impact how judges and juries perceive victims, suspects, and case relevant information, and they use these same stereotypes to inform predictions about the odds of conviction” (George & Spohn, 2018, p. 1285). Konradi’s (2007) excellent book, Taking the Stand¸ documents survivors’ frustrating experiences even when their cases make it to trial, including the lack of prosecutor preparedness and involving the survivors in their own cases. Figure 9.4 was constructed from Alderden and Ullman’s (2012a) research on police-reported sexual assaults of women 18 years old and older in a large midwestern city, providing some of the most detailed data on the “fallout” in different stages of prosecutorial decision-making. The data are useful but also concerning, given how many sexual assault cases fall out of the CLS.

Sexual Abuse Survivors’ Goals and Agency Rape survivors’ primary four motivations for taking part in the court sentencing of their rapists, identified by Konradi and Burger (2000), were to (1) influence the assailants’ sentence; (2) engage in the court process (including to own and tell their own experiences, which were often at odds with what the defense presented); (3) reduce the imbalance of power with the assailant; and (4) resolve emotional components of the rape (e.g., to purge self-doubt and/or anger, or to bring closure). Not surprisingly, when prosecutors, judges, or victim advocates encouraged these survivors to represent themselves through writing or speaking (regarding the sentence), they were more likely to do so. Likewise, when discouraged to take part by these same court actors, they were less motivated and empowered to do so.

Description

Figure 9.4 ● Attrition of Sexual Assault Cases From PoliceReported to Prosecutor-Approved With Felony Charges in a Large Midwestern Police Department Source: Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012). Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 525–551.

Court Officials’ Responses to Sexual Abuse Cases Unfortunately, much of the research on what influences court outcomes in rape cases is conducted using mock jurors (often college students) with survey vignettes or mock rape trials. This is much less expensive but far less reliable than collecting data from actual court,11 including trial, data. This section will focus on studies of data from actual survivors, court officials, and case outcomes. U.S. research reports about a third of defendants arrested for sexual assault have their cases end in convictions (Estrich, 1987; Spohn & Spears, 1996). Notably, many sexual assault convictions do not result in jail/prison sentences (LaFree, 1989; McGregor et al., 2002; Spohn & Spears, 1996). 11

Even though many of the mock trials are based on actual trials, the “jury members” are not actual jury members and the reenactment of these cases cannot possibly replicate people’s tones and nonverbal behaviors. Wentz (2019, p. 1) emphasizes the interconnectedness of police and prosecutor decision-making in sexual assault cases. Also, recall from Figure 9.4 that only 9.7% of police-reported sexual assaults and only 39% of these sexual assaults presented for prosecution resulted in felony charges by the prosecutors (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a). Significantly, sexual abuse survivors face the same scrutiny and victim-blaming for their personal characteristics and behaviors (what should be extralegal variables) in all aspects of the courts that they did with the police. Too often, even those seemingly advocating for victims, the prosecutors, make decisions without taking survivors’ wants or needs into account and discriminate against victims who are disenfranchised (e.g., due to racism, classism, immigration status, etc.) and/or unconventional (e.g., nontraditional gender performance, queer, drug/alcohol addiction or even use, having many consensual sex partners, sex work, having an official criminal history, etc.) as deemed by an archaic and sexist, racist, classist standard (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a; Bernat, 2002; Denike, 2002; Frohmann, 1991, 1997; Konradi, 2007; LaFree, 1989; Lafree et al., 1985; Spohn et al., 2001; Spohn & Spears, 1996; Stanko, 1982; K. M. Williams, 1981). And, of course, such troubling responses are usually even more extreme by many defense attorneys, and even judges, such that even if survivors’ cases proceed to court, convictions are often denied based on these extralegal variables (Alderden & Ullman, 2012a; Konradi, 2007; LaFree, 1989; Stanko, 1982). In sum, many of the disenfranchising, extralegal characteristics about victims are the same characteristics that place individuals most at risk of sexual abuse. Like police responses, many prosecutors’ ignorance of the dynamics surrounding sexual abuse (e.g., adhering to rape myths and ignorant of rape culture) negatively impacts these survivors attempting to secure prosecution of their abusers. Some prosecutors who recognize rape myths and rape culture, however, still will not advance these cases in the courts, believing that judges’ and juries’ ignorance of sexual abuse dynamics will keep the prosecutors from achieving a conviction (Beichner & Spohn, 2012; George & Spohn, 2018). A recent study using Los Angeles data found that prosecutors were most likely to pursue rape charges when the survivors “cooperated” with them (George & Spohn, 2018). This study found the strength of evidence and presence of aggravating factors increased prosecutors’ likelihood of making charges but that they were also “more concerned with rape myth factors, specifically victim behavior and credibility, than with the strength of evidence or presence of aggravating factors … consistent with the real rape stereotype” (George & Spohn, 2018, p. 1296). The findings on what impacts rape prosecutor decision-making and court outcomes are similar to what influences police decisions to arrest, and like the arrest decisionmaking findings, there is some indication that some of these are changing for the better with time. Prosecutors moving the case forward (charging) and court convictions are more likely when the victim and defendant are strangers (than known to each other) (Estrich, 1987; Russell, 1984; K. M. Williams, 1981), the defendant used more physical force (Burt & Albin, 1981; Estrich, 1987), the victim physically

resisted, often significantly (Estrich, 1987; Sheehy, 2000; Wentz, 2019), there is a higher quality of evidence (Estrich, 1987; Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019; K. M. Williams, 1981), a SAK (Wentz, 2019), the victim was injured (McGregor et al., 2002; Wentz, 2019), medical examiners testify (R. Campbell, Patterson, & Bybee, 2012; McGregor et al., 2002), “timely”/prompt reporting to the police (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019), the victim “cooperated” (Meeker et al., 2019), the victim has a traditional “moral character” (Beichner & Spohn, 2012; B. A. Campbell et al., 2015; Frohmann, 1991, 1997; Lafree et al., 1985). A large Los Angeles study found that relative to White and Asian American suspects, prosecutors were less likely to file sexual assault charges with African American suspects and more likely to file charges in cases with African American and Latinx victims relative to White (George & Spohn, 2018, p. 1303). A large three-city (Miami, Kansas City, and Philadelphia) study found the victims’ drinking and having a criminal record increased the prosecutors’ likelihood of making charges in “simple” but not “aggravated” rapes (Beichner & Spohn, 2012). “Stated another way, the absence of any aggravating circumstances enhances the importance of victim credibility,” such that victims’ drinking and criminal record are used to reject charges (Beichner & Spohn, 2012, p. 19). However, a more recent study found whether the rape was “aggravated” was unrelated to the prosecutors’ filing (Meeker et al., 2019). Like arrest research, more recent studies on prosecutor decision-making are finding victims and suspects’ race (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019) and the VOR (Meeker et al., 2019; Wentz, 2019) unrelated to these decisions. Most feminists and many others do not agree with most assessments of sexual abuse victims’ “moral character” (e.g., having consensual sex before marriage, multiple former sex partners, being a sex worker, consuming alcohol/drugs, having had an abortion, etc.). Moreover, sexual abuse survivors are often portrayed in court as having some of these characteristics even when they do not. It is astounding and consistent with rape culture that when determining whether the abuse occurred and what the abuser’s accountability is, the victim’s moral character and history are often viewed as far more significant than both the defendant’s rape tactics and the defendant’s moral character and history.

Nonprofit Agencies Designed to Assist Sexual Abuse Survivors Although rape crisis centers (RCCs) are not technically part of the CLS, they interface with them. Similar to the intimate partner abuse survivors’ safehouses/shelters, discussed in the next chapter, they evolved from the feminist anti-rape movement of the early 1970s, with diverse models varying by community (Gornick et al., 2016). Nancy Matthews (1989) documents how the early Los Angeles RCC movement excluded African American women’s input, and women of Color successfully fought for state funding, “an otherwise conservative influence on the anti-rape movement, [which] facilitated the progressive goal of expanding racial and ethnic diversity,” to fund two new RCCs to serve Black women (p. 518). Matthews notes that although states can “co-opt or facilitate social movements,” in this case the state responded by supporting African American women’s organizing (p. 531). Subsequently, these leaders were stymied by the state’s demands about the “African American” RCCs, and the racially diverse feminists, many of whom were lesbians, collaborated to make all of the RCCs better in funding the two shelters that would likely not have existed. Elizabeth Whalley’s (2019, p. 1) more recent ethnography of a U.S. RCC is less positive, indicating more of what Matthews (1989) would refer to as state co-option of feminist ideals, as the RCC became more bureaucratic and tied to the CLS, “to the detriment of the victims and efforts to end sexual assault.” This is not to say that RCCs need to be dismantled; rather it is to say that feminists need to work to advocate for non-state-co-opted institutions and states need to fund them while maintaining their independence from the CLS where it is necessary.

SUMMARY

Rape is the violent crime least likely to be reported to the police (Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Rennison, 2010) or cleared by the police (T. J. Taylor et al., 2009). This chapter explained the limitations inherent in how the term rape has traditionally been defined. To fully understand and measure sexual abuse, it is necessary to acknowledge that people are sexually victimized in many ways in addition to forced penile–vaginal penetration between adult strangers. The rate of sexual abuse in the United States and elsewhere is much higher than once thought, particularly between acquaintances. In addition to the humiliation associated with sexual abuse, victims may fear the offenders’ retaliation or lack of support by the criminal legal system (CLS), and/or they may blame themselves for the assault. In the case of child sexual abuse, the victim may not be in a situation to report the behavior or even to understand that s/he has been legally victimized. Thus, in spite of increased attention by the media and researchers, for many reasons sexual abuse remains a highly invisible crime. It was not until the 1980s that child sexual abuse was labeled a social problem. In a relatively short period of time, we have become aware that it may occur to as many as 62% of girls and 31% of boys (Peters, Wyatt, & Finkelhor, 1986). Child sexual abuse has remained invisible for the same reasons that the sexual abuse of adult women has remained invisible. However, in most cases, children are even less empowered than adult women to physically resist sexual abuse and to be able to report their victimizations. Sexual harassment is a form of sexual abuse that is legally addressed as happening in the workplace (Title VII) or in the context of education (Title IX). Certainly, these abuses can occur anywhere. There is significant documentation of the risk of sexual harassment among college women, particularly women of Color, but less so in education for students in Grades K–12, although what does exist stresses this as a substantial problem that often gets lost or not acknowledged with the current focus on bullying, even in elementary school. Unfortunately, many survivors of sexual abuse are further victimized by their encounters with the CLS if their cases are reported. Police and courts have frequently been found to be suspicious of any women, and often children, who claim to have been sexually abused. Disbelief and cynicism on the part of the criminal legal authorities is most prevalent in the cases that occur most frequently and in which the victim is most likely to be able to identify the offender: acquaintance rapes. It is necessary for police officers, judges, and lawyers to be educated about the realities of sexual abuse. This education is also necessary for the public, not only because they serve on juries but also in order that they may stop their own rape-prone behaviors and/or be supportive when someone they know experiences sexual abuse. Rape awareness education may reduce the sexual abuse of women and girls by making them aware of what places them most at risk, as well as educating males about what constitutes rape and why it is illegal and immoral.

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure A note reads below the figure reads, although it is difficult to assess what percentage of sexual abuse is violent, all sexual assault/violence is abuse, but most sexual abuse is not violent. Back to Figure This double-sided arrow that reads coercion/exploitation on the left end and force on the right end, has seven circles at equal intervals, on it. The circles from the left to right, have progressively larger portions covered in a dark tone. The first circle on the left under coercion/exploitation has the smallest portion in the dark tone, and the circle at the right under force, is completely covered in the dark tone. Each circle has a title and text below it, under the double-sided arrow. These categories as seen from left to right, are listed below:

Exploitative voyeurism and/or media image: For self-gratification and/or to give or sell to others, watch and/or record activity such as undressing, showering, or sexual activity Incapacitate: Sexual activity with someone physically unable to consent (e.g., drunk, in a coma etc.) Drug- or alcohol-facilitated: Force or trick into drug/alcohol incapacitation (i.e., intentionally intoxicates or slips debilitating drug or for sexual activity) Sexual bribery: Promise a reward such as a good grade, a job, a promotion, a basic necessity (such as food), etc. Threaten nonforceful outcome: Verbal threat to fire, give a bad grade, implicate for a crime, harm another person, etc. Threaten force: Verbal threat to kill or injure Use force: Pin, restrain, injure, threaten with gun or weapon, kill Back to Figure This double-sided arrow that reads no substance effect on the left end and complete substance effect on the right end, has three circles at equal intervals, on it. The circles from the left to right, have progressively larger portions covered in a darker tone. The first circle on the left has only a third of the circle covered in a darker tone, the second circle has two-thirds of the circle covered in the darker tone and the last circle on the right is completely dark-toned. The text in the arrow above these circles reads, substances (drugs/alcohol) may have been voluntarily consumed by the victim and/or given to the victim by the abuser(s) in order to facilitate committing the sexual abuse Each circle has a title and text below it, under the double-sided arrow. These categories as seen from left to right, are listed below: Nonimpaired: Did not consume any substances, or not enough substances to intoxicate, get high, or impair Impaired: Consumed enough substances to weaken judgement and/or physical abilities Incapacitated: Consumed sufficient substances to be unable to resist or consent to sexual activity Back to Figure

This inverted triangle is divided into five equal layers. Each layer has text in it and a category beside it. From the base of the triangle above to the apex below, these layers and the corresponding text read: N = 465 Sexual Assault Cases of Women 18 years old and older 90.5%

Reported to Police

Police determined case was founded.

(n = 421) 31.8%

Police made an arrest.

(n = 148) 24.9% (n = 116) 9.7% (n = 45)

Case presented to prosecutors for felony charge

Prosecutor approved case for felony charge

10 INTIMATE PARTNER ABUSE (IPA) AND STALKING Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important global public health problem, affecting women across the life span and increasing the risk for a number of unfavorable health outcomes, including chronic pain, depression and other mental health problems, adverse birth outcomes, and death. —Beyer, Wallis, and Hamberger (2015, p. 16)

DEFINING INTIMATE PARTNER ABUSE (IPA) AND STALKING The topics of this chapter are the gender-based abuses intimate partner abuse (IPA) and stalking. Although stalking can and does include a wide range of victim–offender relationships (VORs), the most common VOR in stalking is a current or former romantic/intimate partner (Amar, 2006; Blaauw, Winkel, Arensman, Sheridan, & Freeve, 2002; Cattaneo, Cho, & Botuck, 2011; Coker et al., 2002, 2008; Galeazzi, Bucˇar-Rucˇman, DeFazio, & Groenen, 2009; C. E. Jordan, Wilcox, & Pritchard, 2007; Krebs, Breiding, Browne, & Warner, 2011; Melton, 2004; Norris, Huss, & Palarea, 2011; Sheridan, Davies, & Boon, 2001; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Tjaden, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b, 2000), and stalking is a common tactic used by current and former intimate partner abusers (Belknap, Chu, & DePrince, 2012; Coker et al., 2008; Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007; Krebs et al., 2011; Kyriakakis, Dawson, & Edmond, 2012; Melton, 2007; Norris et al., 2011).

Defining Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) For the purposes of this book, the terms (ex)partner1 and intimate partner (IP) are used to describe people who are currently or were

formerly in a romantic relationship, typically as spouses, girlfriends/boyfriends, lovers, or ex-spouses, ex-lovers, and so on. Intimate partners (IPs) and (ex)partners also include couples who have only gone on one date, but the one date was abusive and/or resulted in stalking. 1

This is consistent with Logan (2017).

Naming the phenomenon of people who abuse their (ex)partners has been problematic. First, defining it as domestic violence confuses the issue of distinguishing it from child abuse, elder abuse, and sibling abuse. Second, defining this phenomenon as spouse abuse ignores the fact that many of the couples are not married; they are dating, cohabiting, divorced, and so on (Button & Miller, 2013; Coker et al., 2008; Próspero, 2009; Scherer, Snyder, & Fisher, 2013). Third, the most dangerous, including lethal, violence in the context of romantic/intimate partners is often by former partners, when the victim has left the abuser (Belknap, Larson, et al., 2012; J. C. Campbell, 1992; D. Ellis, 1987; D. Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1989; Glass, KoziolMcLain, Campbell, & Block, 2004; M. R. Mahoney, 1991; Pagelow, 1993; Sev’er, 1997; M. Wilson & Daly, 1993). Recognizing that what has been called domestic violence and spousal violence also occurs among people who have never been married or were formerly married, including same-sex couples (who were not legally allowed to marry until 2015) and trans and intersex individuals, are at a heightened IPA risk. The term intimate partner violence (IPV) has been increasingly used since the late 1990s to label abuse by current or former partners, dates, and lovers. Although this label is appealing on many levels, it does not recognize what has been addressed in the previous two chapters on gender-based abuses (GBAs): Much of the abuse perpetrated by (ex)partners is not violent per se. Therefore, the term intimate partner abuse (IPA) is the best label for this prevalent and often serious form of victimization by a previous, current, or dating partner, lover, or spouse (Belknap & Potter, 2006). Most of the laws criminalizing IPA still refer to this abuse as domestic violence, so this term will also appear in this chapter, mostly in the context of police and court policies and actions. Like the previous chapter, the terms survivor and victim will be used interchangeably. Similar to the situation of rape survivors discussed in the previous chapter, a force that keeps IPA invisible is that the survivors themselves are often reluctant to define themselves as victims (Leisenring, 2006; Potter, 2008; Walker, 1979) and might hide, deny,

and/or minimize their partners’ abuse and their injuries resulting from this abuse, particularly during the early stages of the IPA perpetration (Baly, 2010; Browne, 1987; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1998; K. J. Ferraro & Johnson, 1983). Individuals raped by their drunk/high IPs are often unlikely to identify the experience as rape although they report feeling victimized and even “raped” (e.g., Boonzaier & Schalkwyk, 2011; Weiss, 2011). In one study, the survivors blamed the alcohol/drugs instead of their boyfriends: “By scapegoating these substances, victims are able to deny their partners’ intent (‘he didn’t realize what he was doing’) and to distinguish the unwanted sexual incidents as atypical or uncharacteristic of their partners’ true (i.e., sober) selves” (Weiss, 2011, p. 453). Additionally, IPA survivors may believe that if the abuse by their partners “only” occurs once or twice a year, they are not really victims. Yet, once abused, survivors know that potential is always there, and the threat of violence frequently serves to guide the relationship from then on, often keeping survivors under their abusers’ control. Stated another way, the abusers do not “need” to be physically abusive as long as their victims do what they want them to do. Among IPA survivors, “unacknowledged victims” are likely when the abuse is nonviolent (Basile, 2008; A. L. Brown et al., 2009; Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011), sexual (Basile, 2008; Weiss, 2011), and/or simply fails to meet stereotypical and common conceptions of IPA (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; C. E. Jordan et al., 2007). Additionally, among both acknowledged and unacknowledged victims, however, there is still a cultural and pride standard prohibiting most people from “airing dirty laundry” about their intimate relationship and family problems, even when they are the victims/survivors or witnesses (not abusers), and IPA certainly qualifies. Shui-Thornton and her colleagues (2005) describe this among Vietnamese refugee women IPA survivors in Seattle, where such secrecy is likely particularly acute (i.e., Asian and Asian American refugees) due to “strongly held cultural prohibitions against public disclosure” of IPA and marital problems (p. 967). IPA has considerable victim-blaming, shaming, and stigma, including by some survivors (Babcock & DePrince, 2013), which is likely particularly strong among immigrant IPA survivors (Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005; Villalón, 2010).

Defining Stalking

The first national study on stalking, conducted by Tjaden and Thoennes (1998b) defined stalking as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear” (p. 2). To be “repeated,” the conduct had to occur at least twice (p. 2). Similarly, a stalker has been described as “someone who persistently pursues another individual in a way that instills fear in the target” (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999, p. 44). Cailleau and Jaafari (2018) define stalking as “a set of undesirable and intrusive behaviors that are … repeated against a specific person in order to harass them and/or threaten [them], and which can lead to physical and/or sexual assault—even homicide” (p. 510).2 2

Translated from the French; this is a French journal.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COERCION/COERCIVE CONTROL The last chapter stressed the role of coercion in sexual abuse. Coercion is central in IPA and stalking, which is hardly surprising given the huge overlap between stalkers and IP abusers (and stalking and IPA victims). “Monitoring their victims’ behaviors and whereabouts is central to many intimate partner abusers’ control” (Belknap, Chu, et al., 2012, p. 378). The late Ellen Pence working with Michael Paymar, is credited with developing the still-used Power and Control Wheel in 1986 through the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project.3 They designed this circular diagram through hundreds of women survivors’ reports on how their abusive partners controlled them (Pence & Paymar, 1986). The diagram has physical and sexual IPV on the “tire” part of the wheel, and between the spokes are eight other tactics used to control and hold power over the women, including the abusive partners’ use of coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, male privilege, and the victims’ children, as well as the IP abusers’ minimizing, denying, and blaming the victim or others for the abuse. Despite the popularity in using this wheel for training and education, little effort was made to conceptualize control tactics until Dutton and Goodman (2005). The most comprehensive treatise of the significance and identification of (ex)partners’ nonviolent controlling tactics is Stark’s (2009) book,

Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. The different subtactics listed under the psychological/emotional IPA tactics in Table 10.1 are mostly coercive control tactics. 3

Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dZOgr78eE to see Ellen Pence speak about developing the Power and Control Wheel (PCW). An online search for the PCW provides the original and many adaptations still used in trainings and educational classes. Research has documented many reasons why nonviolent abuse and coercive control (often one and the same) is serious and must be responded to seriously. First, (ex)partners’ violent and other threats, including to kill their partners, children, and others, should not only “count” as abuse but be taken seriously, as they are all too often carried out (Belknap, Larson, et al., 2012; Brewster, 2000; Cattaneo, Bell, Goodman, & Dutton, 2007; Fleury et al., 2000; Logan, 2017; Logan & Cole, 2007). Second, partners who use coercive control during intimate relationships are more likely, postseparation (when their victims leave them), to stalk and be more violent (Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). One study of divorcing mothers found those who experienced “only” nonviolent coercive control reported the same levels of both fear and control as those with violent (ex)partners (some of whom also experienced nonviolent control), and more postseparation fear than the divorcing women with violent abusers (Crossman et al., 2016). Third, coercive control tactics are “indicative of a toxic relational environment that may subtly erode victim autonomy and sense of self over time” (Mitchell & Raghavan, 2019, p. 1).

IPA TACTICS Over the years, many IPA tactics have been identified (see Table 10.1). Tong (1984, p. 126) claims IPA tactics must (1) occur between people in a current or former intimate relationship, (2) result in harm to the victim, and (3) involve a manifestation of domination and control. Even among various groups such as criminal legal system (CLS) officials, mental health counselors, and criminology scholars, there is disagreement on what “counts” as an IPA tactic, particularly in terms of nonphysical tactics, such as psychological and emotional tactics, which are largely coercive controls. Given the disagreement over what counts as IPA, who counts as IPA perpetrators and victims is also often debated. Additionally, some scholars and non-scholars

y believe IPA must be repeated at least once; it cannot be a one-time phenomenon. It is important to remember, however, that once IPA has occurred, it is evident to both the abuser and the victim that it could happen again, and thus even one abusive event can, and often does, serve to control survivors, often for the remainder of the relationship (and sometimes afterward). There are four primary IPA tactic areas: physical, sexual, pregnancy, and psychological/emotional, with many subtopic areas, particularly under psychological/emotional. Table 10.1 provides a detailed, but likely still not comprehensive, list. Most of the psychological/emotional abuses are also coercive control tactics, as are many stalking tactics, and there is significant overlap. For example, school sabotage abuse can be economic abuse when it keeps the survivor from being financially independent and wastes the tuition paid. Table 10.1 includes tactic examples, but in some cases additional information is provided in this section. Most IP abusers use, thus most victims experience, a number of tactics (Basile, 2008; Boonzaier & van Schalkwyk, 2011; Cho & Wilke, 2010; Coker et al., 2002, 2008; Guadalupe-Diaz, 2019; Krebs et al., 2011; Kyriakakis et al., 2012; Logan, 2017; Próspero, 2009; Scherer et al., 2013; Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998a, 2000). For example, a national study of women IPA survivors of male partners revealed 14% also experienced sexual abuse, 24% also experienced psychological abuse, and 12% also experienced stalking by the same partner; these rates were consistent across race/ethnicity, among African American, Latina, and white women (Flicker et al., 2011). A study of poor (88% made less than $14,999 in the previous year), 99% White, pregnant rural Appalachian women entering an opiate detoxification unit found that in the past year, 75% reported IPA victimization, with 71% reporting psychological IPA, 32% physical IPA, 14% stalking IPA, and 14% sexual IPA. Almost a quarter (23%) were injured and 21% of the survivors’ abusers threatened taking their children taken away. Moreover, 17% had been previously hospitalized for psychiatric disorders, 48% had mental disorders, and 95% had a physical health problem (Shannon et al., 2016). Guadalupe-Diaz (2019) found that every participant in his study of trans survivors “described a combination of physical and emotional abuses that occurred regularly of periods of psychological manipulation punctuated with more physical violence” (p. 69). Table 10.1 ● The Multifaceted Tactics of Intimate Partner Abuse

Perpetrators may commit one or all of these, and likewise, survivors may experience one or any combination of these. IPA Tactic

Examples

Physical Abuse

Hitting, kicking, pushing, slapping, throwing something at, strangling, stabbing, shooting (e.g., with gun or arrow)

Sexual Abuse Forcing or coercing sexual contact, including vaginal, oral, and anal penetration with a penis or other object; sex trafficking by an intimate partner Stalking

Physically following the victim (by car, walking, bicycle, etc.); constantly calling, emailing, or texting the victim; cyberstalking the victim (e.g., with spyware, video cameras, global positioning systems, online databases, or through Facebook or other social media)

Pregnancy Abuse

Can fit in all the main IPA tactic categories (i.e., physical, sexual, emotional, stalking) and is where a partner is physically, sexually, or emotionally abusive during pregnancy.

Psychological/ Child abuse Emotional Abuse

Abusing a child to punish/abuse the adult partner victim (usually the victim’s child or joint child of the victim and abuser); abuse of the child can be physical, sexual, and emotional/psychological/verbal

IPA Tactic

Examples Family/friend Disrespecting, threatening, and abuse violently abusing the victim’s parents, siblings, friends, etc. Pet/animal abuse

Hitting, kicking, threatening, giving away, sexually abusing, or killing pets; not allowing sufficient food, water, or shelter for pets

Property destruction

Destroying, breaking, or stealing the victim’s belongings, such as phones, computers, clothes, car, and furniture, and defacing or destroying the victim’s home

Threats

Threatening the victim with harm, including threatening to kill or sexually abuse the victim or victim’s loved ones; threatening to kidnap or get custody of the victim’s children; threatening or attempting suicide to try to coerce the victim from leaving

Humiliation

Making the victim clean toilets, clean the abuser’s messes (including the abuser’s feces and vomit), eat pet food; saying the victim is stupid, unattractive, fat, ugly, a bad mother; cursing and/or yelling at the victim

IPA Tactic

Examples Social isolation

Coercing or keeping the victim from in-person, phone, email or other contact with friends, family, coworkers, neighbors; at the most extreme, kidnapping/holding the victim hostage

Economic abuse

Taking victims’ paychecks, tax funds, or disability payments; coercing/forcing the victim not to get a job; hiding/taking car keys so victims can’t go to a job interview or existing job; making all big financial decisions without victims’ input

School sabotage

Undermine victims’ financial aid; stalk, threaten, or physically abuse victims at school/college

Proxy abuse Using others such as friends or relatives to abuse or stalk the victim (often used when an abuser is in jail or the victim has a restraining order) Spiritual abuse

Purposefully impairing the victim’s spiritual/religious well-being; preventing access to religious observances, leaders, and communities

IPA Tactic

Examples Systems abuse

Exerting power through manipulating the legal and/or social agency systems, such as making false charges that the IP victim committed child abuse, instigating frivolous lawsuits against the victims to cause psychological harm or financial harm, and/or forcing/coercing contact or even reconciliation; also called “paper abuse”

Sources: This chart draws primarily on the classic categorizations/tactics identified by Tong (1984), but affirmed and/or expanded by Belknap, Chu, & DePrince (2012); Boonzaier & Schalkwyk (2011); Kyriakakis, Dawson, & Edmond (2012); Logan (2017); and Shiu-Thornton et al. (2005). I am particularly grateful to Hardesty et al. (2013a) for harm to pets, Adams et al. (2008) for economic IPA, Southworth et al. (2007) for cyberstalking, Dehan & Levi (2009) for spiritual IPA, Kyriakakis et al. (2012) for extended family abuse, Melton (2007) for proxy abuse, Miller & Smolter (2011) for systems/paper abuse, and Voth Schrag & Edmond (2017) for school sabotage.

Physical IPA Nonsexual physical IPA is the tactic most people think of with IPA and “battered women,” and it includes abuse ranging from slapping, shoving, hitting, burning, kicking, to strangling, suffocating, stabbing, shooting, and other forms of nonsexual physical violence. Many research studies and police reports fail to distinguish between more minor and more serious forms of slapping, shoving, and so on (e.g., a 90-pound person shoving away a 200-pound partner who just punched her, or a 200-pound person shoving a 90-pound partner through a glass door or glass table or out of a moving car) (Melton & Belknap, 2003). While physical IPA can obviously be very serious, focusing on it at the cost of excluding all of the other IPA tactics listed in Table 10.1 denies the potential seriousness of the other IPA tactics, many of which the survivors report as more harmful/hurtful than the physical abuse.

Sexual IPA Sexual IPA is when there is a sexual nature to the IPA, such as oral, anal, or vaginal rape or beatings on the breasts or genitals, as explained under marital and date rapes in Chapter 9 (Abraham, 1999; Basile, 2008; DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1993; Finkelhor & Yllö, 1985; Koss, 1998, p. 198; Krienert & Walsh, 2018; Kyriakakis et al., 2012; D. E. H. Russell, 1982). As noted, sexual IPA is often a way to keep abuse hidden given where it occurs on the body and the stigma associated with being a rape victim, particularly of one’s intimate partner.

Pregnancy IPA It used to be assumed that pregnancy was the safest time for women in terms of IPA, because abusers would not want to do anything to harm their children. It is now clear that pregnancy is one of the most dangerous, including lethal, times for women and girls abused by IPs (Adhia et al., 2019; Belknap, Larson, et al., 2012; Burch & Gallup, 2004; Krulewitch, 2009; McFarlane et al., 2002). Adhia and colleagues’ (2019) study of girls (17 or younger) killed by their (ex)partners found 78% of their abusers were 18 or older, 63% were currently partners, and in 6.7% of these IP homicides of girls, the abusers’ motivation was because they knew or suspected their girlfriends were pregnant. A meta-analysis of almost 100 IPA studies among pregnant women found, on average, 28% reported emotional IPA, 14% reported physical IPA, 8% reported sexual IPA, and pregnancy IPA was most risky for women with unintended pregnancies (James et al., 2013). The reasons given for pregnancy IPA have everything to do with jealousy and control, with motivations including (1) keeping women pregnant and with small children to further control them (e.g., keeping them from working outside the home, allowing them less time to spend time with others), sexual jealousy (fears that the fetus is not “theirs”), and jealousy of their victims’ emotions and body changes devoted to the fetus. Clearly, pregnancy abuse is emotionally and physically harmful for the pregnant woman and can have serious implications for the well-being of the fetus, and for the babies, including increased likelihoods of miscarriages and neonatal death of the baby (Sanchez et al., 2013; Webster et al., 1996). A study of the IPA victimization of South Asian immigrant women in the United States reported abusers’ control through manipulation of their victims’ reproductive rights that included

not allowing birth control, causing continual pregnancies, and denying the woman the right to have a child by abusing her when she was pregnant, to the point of losing the pregnancy (Abraham, 1999). Obviously, IPA does not impact only fetuses and newborns; a metasynthesis of the impact of IPA on the children involved described it as “complex, isolating, and enduring experience that often results in disruption, losses, and challenges to their significant relationships” (Noble-Carr et al., 2020, p. 182).

Psychological/Emotional Abuse Psychological/emotional IPA is often minimized but is potentially extremely harmful; many survivors report it as the most damaging type of IPA (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Kyriakakis et al., 2012). As reported in Table 10.1, psychological/emotional IPA can be manifested many ways, including child abuse, destruction of pets and property, threats to the victim, verbal humiliation, and social isolation. IP abusers often also abuse their children (and/or their victims’ children from a previous relationship) (Doe & Belknap, 2019; Kyriakakis et al., 2012; B. E. Saunders, 2003).4 Children are one of the main reasons victims stay in abusive relationships and one of the main reasons they leave. For many IPA victims, the worst IPA tactic used by their abusers is harming their children, which was the case in Kyriakakis and colleagues’ study of Mexican immigrant women in the United States, whereby “nearly all” survivors described their partners’ harm of their children 4

In this chapter when I refer to the children, they are usually the joint children of the intimate partners, but sometimes they are the victims’ children prior to being in an intimate relationship with the abusers, or they are the abusers’ children. Of course, the children could be a combination, as well, such as each member of the relationship had a child prior to meeting and then have or adopt one together. as the most hurtful aspect of the abuse. All of the women deeply value their children and place supreme importance on their role as mother, which was frequently exploited by the abusive partners. The participants reported that watching their children suffer was very painful and lowered their feelings of self-worth because it undermined their confidence

in their most cherished role of being a mother. (Kyriakakis et al., 2012, p. 556) Research also documents IPA survivors’ pain of when their abusers threaten to or actually harm, ranging from disrespectful behavior aimed at them to killing, their friends and other family members (Kyriakakis et al., 2012; Logan, 2017). Pet/animal abuse is where the IP abusers threaten harm or kill companion animals belonging to the victims. I use the term pet instead of animal as almost all of these abuses are of animals which are pets, although I was once on a panel with an IPA survivor whose ex-husband who lived in a very rural area would make his young son sit on his lap while driving at night, trying to hit animals with his car, which was, of course, terrifying to the boy. Studies find from 40% to 92% of women in safehouses (abuse shelters) have pets (C. P. Flynn, 2000; Hardesty et al., 2013a). One study comparing IP abusers who did not abuse their pets to those who did found the pet abusers were more likely to primarily communicate with the pets through threats and commands, show less affection to their pets, view their pets as property, scapegoat their pets, frequently punish their pets, and “have unrealistic expectations about their pets” (such as never having urinary or defecation “accidents,” clawing furniture, etc.) (CarlisleFrank et al., 2004, p. 26). Another study found that one of the tactics for IPA abusers who also abused the victims’ pets was not to allow the victim to take the pet to a veterinarian, but this study also advocated for veterinarians being resources for women in IPA relationships when they disclose or the veterinarians suspect IPA (Tiplady et al., 2012). One study found that among IPA survivors with pets, the more bonded they were to their pets, the more likely their abusers were to also abuse the pets (Hardesty et al., 2013a). A recent study found that IPA survivors believed their abusers’ emotionally abusing and neglecting their pets, as well as the abusers’ threats to the partner to harm their pets, were motivated by these abusers’ desire to upset these survivors and their children “and to exert power/control over them” (Fitzgerald, 2019, p. 1823). Notably, the survivors believed their perpetrators’ physical, especially severe physical, abuse of the animals was to upset more than control them and their children (Fitzgerald, 2019). Underlying the clear loss of a beloved animal or

cherished property is the message that the victim and any children who view this are also capable of being cruelly destroyed. Logan’s (2017) research on “explicit threats in the context of coercive control” among women IPA survivors seeking protection orders found 90% of their abusers threatened to harm them, 81% to seriously harm them, 76% to kill them, 51% to harm other people, and 40% actually threatened others directly. The people the abusers were most likely to threaten to harm were the victims’ friends/family (41%), children (25%, of those with children), pets/animals (20%), and coworkers (12%). A study of Mexican immigrant IPA survivors in the United States found verbal abuse, which included spoken criticisms, insults, and threats (and is consistent with “threats” and “humiliation” in Table 10.1), the most common tactic of 10 used by their abusers (Kyriakakis et al., 2012). Social isolation is a tactic where the abusers keep their partners primarily from potential supporters (e.g., friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors), but many of the tactics also keep them from CLS help/supporters. Social isolation is also practiced by IP abusers by being so unpleasant/abusive when around family, friends, coworkers, and so on that they avoid the abuser, or in some cases they are so afraid of the abuser that they do not even want contact with the survivor. They may also feel judgmental of the survivors for not leaving their abusers and thus distance themselves or even “drop” them, which is effective isolation. At its most extreme, social isolation can include kidnapping and/or locking/boarding up a victim in her own home or elsewhere (Kyriakakis et al., 2012, p. 554). Financial/economic IPA controls victims and their children by not allowing the victims access to money (even what they earned or inherited) or by deterring or sabotaging victims’ work, employability, job performance, or access to education (Adams et al., 2008; Anderberg & Rainer, 2013; Postmus et al., 2012). Economic abuse likely results in the victims’ increased dependence on the abuser and seriously impacts their short- and long-term economic, physical, and mental health and futures (Adams et al., 2008, p. 568). In addition to being abusive by violently controlling the survivor, economic abuse can result in survivors and their children not having sufficient food, transportation for emergencies, and so on in the short run, but also in the long run, when abusers accrue debt in the victims’ names. It can be used to humiliate victims by making them be on an “allowance” or having to ask for money, or to have money withheld until the victim follows a demand, which may be humiliating, illegal, and/or sexual.

School sabotage is highly related to economic abuse as it is often used to keep victims from advancing and becoming more independent, but abusers may also use it to stalk their victims and try to ensure that no one else has romantic access to them (Voth Schrag & Edmond, 2017). The spiritual IPA tactic is when abusers purposefully impair the victims’ spiritual/religious lives and well-being (Cares & Cusick, 2012; Dehan & Levi, 2009; Lichtenstein & Johnson, 2009; Potter, 2007). This is strategic given many religious women’s use of religion to understand the IPA and use religion to seek comfort and healing from it (Cares & Cusick, 2012; Potter, 2007). A study of case files from a Jewish IPA service agency found how the IP abusers “often perverted the laws and traditions of Judaism to control their partners,” but the larger Jewish community offered support for some of these women (Cares & Cusick, 2012, p. 427). As stated at the beginning of this chapter, there is a significant overlap between IPA and stalking. Melton (2007) identified the proxy stalker category of stalker tactics, whereby IP abusers’ friends, family members, and others also stalk their victims, usually at the abusers’ requests/demands and often because the abusers are unable to stalk because of being at work, incarcerated, or sufficiently impressed with the victims’ restraining order so as not to do the stalking themselves. However, some had their proxy stalkers stalk while they were also stalking their (ex)partners (Melton, 2007). Logan’s (2019) study of women and men stalked by (ex)partners and non-partners found a third of all stalking victims experienced proxy stalking, women stalked by non-partners were more likely to be proxy stalked, but women and men stalked by IPs were equally (36%) likely to be proxy stalked. Finally, systems abuse is when IP abusers engage the CLS system and/or social service agencies to harass, demoralize, financially exhaust, emotionally exhaust, force meetings with, and/or even force reconciliation (reuniting) with the abuser. At its most extreme, systems abuse can result in IPA victims’ complete or partial loss of their parental rights, or can even criminalize them, including resulting in their incarceration (Corsilles, 1994; Douglas & Fell, forthcoming; Durfee & Goodmark, 2019; Løkkegaard et al., 2019; S. L. Miller & Smolter, 2011). Systems abuse is common in postseparation (when IPA survivors leave their abusers) and is clearly designed to harm and control the survivors and to hit them where for many it hurts most, losing their children, including having the abuser have partial or full custody of them. Elizabeth (2019) powerfully describes the grief and

loss experienced by these mothers, including concern by many that the “fathers were grooming or had actually sexually abused their children” (p. 39). Løkkegaard and colleagues’ (2019) study of mothers stalked by the fathers of their children consider systems abuse stalking, and found “the children were also targeted by the stalking. Encounters with several agencies were common, but respondents were often not recognized as victims of stalking and demoralized by extensive case proceedings” (p. 1759). What is perhaps most chilling is how most of the systems IPA abuses are not considered illegal, but even when they are (e.g., libel or slander), few survivors have the financial or other resources to challenge this. Douglas and Fell (forthcoming) advocate for investigation processes to ensure that individuals reporting their coparents’ child mistreatment be checked for an IPA record.

The Additional IPA Tactics Based on Further Marginality This section highlights some of the unique IPA tactics that are used based on IPA survivors’ marginalized status. Harper’s (2017) analysis of Latinas’ lower likelihood of killing their abusive IPs situates it as a combination of cultural and institutional factors that reduce their economic independence while increasing their social isolation, which places them at increased risk of IP homicide victimization. Social isolation was identified as a common IPA tactic (see Table 10.1). The groups described in this section may often already be more socially isolated prior to experiencing IPA as a result of their (dis)ability, LGBTQI+, and/or immigration status, and IPA victimization likely isolates them even more (Villalón, 2010). Certainly, some members of their communities may be there for them. And they may not.

Immigrants Like the other marginalized groups in this section, “Latina survivors of IPV live at the nexus of multiple systems of oppression” (Messing et al., 2017, p. 199). IPA survivor immigrants, whether documented or not, are often in a country where they do not speak the dominant language and are without a community of people to ask for help. And their perpetrators may be members of their community (of

immigrants), which can make disclosure and support more difficult and complicated (Abraham, 1999; Bui & Morash, 1999; Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005; Villalón, 2010). Being undocumented puts IPA survivors at additional risk, as their abusers, especially if the abusers are documented, can more ably threaten and thwart their victims’ attempts to be in the country legally, including their efforts to become naturalized citizens. A large study comparing Latina IPA survivors in the United States found those who were not born in the United States were far more likely to report being “beat up” (57%), raped (46%), and forced to have sex without a condom (39%) than U.S.-born Latinas (49%, 31%, and 24%, respectively), although U.S.-born Latinas reported more pushing/shoving (86%) and strangling (42%) victimizations than their counterparts (76% and 29%, respectively) (Cavanaugh et al., 2014).

LGBTQI+ Most IPA studies, if they include trans individuals, do not distinguish by whether they are trans women, trans men, trans female, trans male, or trans/gender-nonbinary, and very few include intersex individuals, but there are some exceptions. A review of 416 studies on IPA in LGBTQI+ relationships reported that physical IPA perpetration was most likely by gay men followed by (in order of frequency) bisexual men, lesbian women, bisexual women, and gendernonbinary individuals (Longobardi & Badenes-Ribera, 2017). Otero and colleagues’ (2015) review of 28 studies found “trans women are the ones who most suffer this type of violence, and the ‘gender normative’ member of the couple is most frequently the aggressor” (p. 914). There is more research on lesbian than gay men’s IPA, but the research suggests that the dynamics tend to be similar except for the added burdens resulting from a homophobic culture and CLS: the threat of being “outed” if the IPA becomes known, the worry of giving the LGBTQI+ a bad name, and threats to child custody for those with dependent children (with the homophobic assumption that “straight” people make better parents) (Allen & Leventhal, 1999; Giorgio, 2002; Girshick, 2002a, 2002b; Potoczniak et al., 2003; Russo, 2003). Gillum and DiFulvio’s (2014) note young people’s challenge of developing a queer identity in a homophobic/heterosexist environment, during a time period when peers’ views are usually most important. They note that these challenges also make it more difficult to address IPA in their relationships. Hassouneh and Glass’s (2008) research on IPA in

women’s same-sex intimate relationships found an invisibility of this abuse due to (1) the assumption that “girls don’t hit other girls”; (2) that a lesbian utopia exists wherein women do not oppress or abuse other women; (3) the view and minimization of this abuse as a harmless and entertaining “cat fight”; and (4) frequently the abusers in these relationships are perceived as the victims, especially when the police respond. McDonald’s (2012) study of woman-to-woman IPA found “heterosexism created a social context in which women were left vulnerable to abuse and dependent on their abusers” (p. 635). The survivors’ childhood abuse, substance/alcohol problems, negative coming out experiences, and lack of a queer community placed these victims at additional risk (McDonald, 2012). A national U.S. study of college students found that relative to both female and male college students, trans college students experienced more of every kind of IPA except that women and trans students were equally likely to experience emotional IPA (Griner et al., 2017). In his study of trans IPA survivors, Guadalupe-Diaz (2019, p. 76) identified the IPA tactic genderist attacks, when the IP abusers rely on a binary definition that sex/gender can only be female or male, and employ transphobia in their abuse. Moreover, some survivors had internalized transphobia such that they stayed with an abuser because the abuser tolerated the person being trans. Similarly, another study interviewing trans IPA survivors reported identity abuse and transphobia as IPA tactics and that “gender transitioning was a temporal factor and a trigger point which seemed to activate or escalate” the IPA (Rogers, 2019, p. 14). A New Zealand study found 17% of trans/gendernonbinary respondents reported the IPA tactic “hiding or throwing away hormones or gender affirming equipment” (Dickson, 2016, p. 25).

People With (Dis)abilities Gilson and colleagues (2001) identified three categories of IPA tactics faced by disabled women. First are emotionally abusive tactics that include using their disabilities to threaten institutionalizing, taking away custody of their children, and conveying judgmental attitudes based on the victims’ disabilities. Second are neglect tactics, which include withholding personal assistance, placing or failing to remove architectural barriers in the home, and not contacting a physician when one is needed. The final category of IPA tactics used against

disabled women, control/restraint, include withholding medications, controlling assistive services, refusing to access social support, controlling access to items and people, and refusing to communicate with assistive devices.

STALKING TACTICS The original measures of stalking in the first stalking studies in the late 1990s and early 2000s focused on what are considered the more traditional stalking tactics, which have since been expanded to include cyberstalking tactics. The traditional stalking tactics included physically following and/or spying on the victim; walking or driving by the victim’s workplace or home; damaging the victim’s property; sending the victim unwanted gifts, letters, and cards; and making unwanted phone calls to the victim (e.g., see Brewster, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Tjaden et al., 2000). Marked increases in technology means not only have capability and access expanded stalking tactics to include cyberstalking, but also cyberstalking has increased the amount of stalking (Belknap, Chu, et al., 2012). More specifically, what now is called cyberstalking includes stalking tactics through text messaging, emails, and GPS tracking (Belknap, Chu, et al., 2012; Dimond et al., 2011; Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; McCloskey & Grigsby, 2005; Melander, 2010; Southworth et al., 2007; Tjaden, 2009). Threats as a stalking tactic are often frightening and should be taken seriously as they are often followed through on, particularly violent threats by IPA stalkers (Brewster, 2000; Meloy, 1996; Roberts, 2005). Or as Brewster (2000, p. 42) points out, if the stalking threats do not work to control the intimate partner victim to stay in or return to the relationship, it is not unusual for the stalker to carry out the threats.

THE HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATION OF IPA AND STALKING AS SOCIAL PROBLEMS A historical account of communitywide and CLS responses to IPA leads one to believe that men were more likely to be punished for not dominating their wives than for beating them. A portrayal of community regulations of domestic authority since the fifteenth century states:

Men could be subjected to ritualized rebukes if they were thought to be doing women’s work, were henpecked, cuckolded, or believed to have been beaten by their wives— that is, when there was a perceived inversion of patriarchal authority and domination…. In addition to being ridiculed by the community for failing to maintain authority, men thought to have domineering or wayward wives were supported in their attempts to regain or retain dominance by ridiculing and shaming the woman publicly and/or by punishing her physically. (R. P. Dobash & Dobash, 1981, p. 566) Hegemonic masculinity, the historically often accepted or even expected, but not biologically determined, pattern of men’s domination of women is at the heart of IPA and thus must be challenged if we wish to challenge IPA (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Physical abuse by men toward their wives has not only been recorded for hundreds of years but often has been portrayed as acceptable, even expected, behavior (D. Martin, 1976). In 1776, Abigail Smith Adams wrote a letter to her husband, John Adams, requesting the freedom of women by restricting the power men held in marriages (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979, p. 4). This plea apparently was ignored. “Wife beating” was addressed as a part of the platform by British and U.S. suffragists during the beginning of the 20th century (Dobash & Dobash, 1979), and by 1920, wife beating was illegal in every state in the United States (Robbins, 1999, p. 208). The most successful movement identifying IPA as a serious social problem began in 1971 in the small English town of Chiswick, when over 500 women and children and one cow marched to protest rising food costs and the reduction of free milk for children (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Although the march did not impact the food and milk costs, it was astoundingly successful in kicking off movement to address IPA as a social problem; the solidarity among the marching women resulted in a community-gathering place for local women, the Chiswick Women’s Aid. In discussions there, women began revealing and discussing the systematic violence they had experienced from their husbands. IPA and its frequency, then, were discovered, changing the focus of Chiswick Women’s Aid to confront IPA, and feminists in other countries joined the movement (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Chiswick Women’s Aid founder Erin Pizzey’s (1977) book Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear, Del Martin’s (1976)

U.S. book Battered Wives, Lenore Walker’s (1979) U.S. book The Battered Woman were effective in growing this feminist movement. Since the mid-1970s, safehouses (also called shelters and refuges) for women IPA survivors have been implemented all over the world. These early shelters were basic, grassroots, community-based efforts by feminists. Often the shelters were individual women’s homes, which they volunteered as sanctuaries for survivors. Such make-do shelters still operate in some rural communities. Thus, the first step in the current abused women’s movement was the setting up of emergency shelters by women within each community. “Since 1975, the movement has made substantial headway in three areas besides emergency shelter: legislation, government policy and programs, and research and public information” (Tierney, 1982, p. 208). However, even today IPA remains invisible to a large degree, and shelters are regularly underfunded and overpopulated, turning women and children away in large numbers. Davies, Lyon, and Monti-Catania (1998) and Kanuha (1996) describe the social and public construction of the “battered woman” that activists and researchers devised in the 1970s and 1980s. They call this depiction the “pure victim,” characterized by a woman who (1) is not herself violent unless in self-defense, (2) has “experienced extreme physical violence separated by periods of emotional abuse,” (3) suffers abuse in a pattern in which it escalates in severity and frequency over time unless someone intervenes, and (4) is terrified by the abuse (Davies [et al.], Lyon, & Monti-Catania, 1998, p. 15). While this image was useful in garnering public support and in accurately portraying many IPA survivors, it left out many that did not fit the “pure victim” and thus were treated with disbelief and disdain by the some police and victim advocates (Davies et al., Lyon, & Monti-Catania, 1998; Kanuham, 1996). The failure of the battered women’s movement in the United States “to center the voices of women of color … created problems in effectively addressing” CLS responses to IPA, particularly “where women of color were both survivors and perpetrators” (Larance, Goodmark, Miller, & Dasgupta, 2019, pp. 58–69). Larance (2019) and colleagues use the term paradigmatic victim similarly to the pure victim, stressing the paradigmatic victim was “cast as White,” consistent with a long history of framing women’s victimization as “tied to White womanhood” (p. 58). The pro-arrest laws (discussed later in this chapter), largely pushed by (White) feminists, were

geared toward these “pure” and “paradigmatic” victims who did not hit back, wanted the police to arrest the abuser, and experienced the same violence in the same ways—with an assumption of Whiteness. Women of Color scholar-activists, such as Shamita Das Gupta and Beth Richie, were instrumental in reframing perceptions of and responses to IPA, using a far more intersectional lens. Since the 1980s, research on dating violence has increased, but so has research on women of Color, immigrant, (dis)abled, and LGBTQI+ survivors. Stalking as a social problem has experienced a much more recent academic and criminal legal history. Although, like most of the offenses and victimizations noted in this book, stalking has always occurred, it was not until high-profile celebrity cases of the 1980s and 1990s—which included President Ronald Reagan, actor Jody Foster, comedian David Letterman, and actor Rebecca Schaeffer—that stalking received much public attention. Schaffer, a 21-year-old actor on the television show My Sister Sam, received unprecedented attention given her age and that her stalker murdered her at her home. We now know that the vast majority of stalking is perpetrated in the context of IPA, and while these high-profile cases raised stalking awareness and impacted laws, it was mostly for stranger VORs where the stalkers were seriously mentally ill. California was the first place to pass an anti-stalking law, doing so in 1990, because of “five stalking-related murders of Orange County women in less than a year” (Tjaden, 2009, p. 261). The first was Rebecca Schaeffer; the following four were women stalked and murdered by exboyfriends or husbands (Tjaden, 2009). By 1995 all states in the United States had passed anti-stalking laws (Tjaden, 2009; Tjaden et al., 2000).

THE FREQUENCY OF IPA AND STALKING IPA Rates Similar to measuring rape/sexual abuse rates, determining the prevalence (lifetime) and incidence (defined period of time, usually one year) of IPA is difficult for a variety of reasons. First, given that IPA victims are too often blamed and stigmatized, victims often minimize the abuse, many survivors do not want a “victim” label, and an expectation to keep family problems hidden, survivors have been

unwilling and/or unlikely to report these experiences, often even to friends and family. Much of the IPA research has been conducted on cases reported to the police and cases where survivors went to safehouses/shelters. Although this research can certainly lend understanding to many of the IPA offending and victimization dynamics and social and CLS responses, most IPA cases do not result in a call to the police, and even fewer involve survivors who go to a safehouse. Thus, these are not representative of all IPAs. Increasingly, IPA data have been collected from community, college student, high school student, military, medical, hotline, and other sources. Some research indicates that young women/girls are more at risk of IPA than other women (C. Rennison, 2001; C. M. Rennison, 2003; C. M. Rennison & Welchans, 2000; Silverman et al., 2001). An extensive survey of about 4,000 Massachusetts high school students reported that 1 in 5 female students reported being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner and that this abuse increased their risk of substance use, unhealthy weight-control behaviors (e.g., vomiting or laxatives), sexually risky behaviors, pregnancy, and thoughts or attempts of suicide (Silverman et al., 2001). Studies on the rates of dating violence suggest that between one fifth and one third of college students report experiencing nonsexual, physical dating violence (Bogal-Allbritten & Allbritten, 1985; Cate et al., 1982; Knutson & Mehm, 1986; Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; Makepeace, 1986). One study found that dating relationships have more prevalent and more serious IPA than marital/cohabitating relationships and are more likely to include weapon use (Erez, 1986). Recall Walsh and colleagues’ (2016) analysis of 19 years of NIBRS data that found that 9% of child abductors (abducting individuals 17 or younger) were (ex)partners. Ninety-eight percent of the IP abductors were men and all (100%) IPabducted victims were girls (younger than age 18). The authors describe the IP abductions as “an extreme form of dating violence perpetrated by young males against young females” (Walsh et al., 2016, p. 37).

The Myth of IPA Gender Symmetry A study using 12 years of NCVS data reported that 89% of the IPA victims were women (Cho & Wilke, 2010), and another NCVS study reported 85% of IPA victims are women, and over a 6-year period

22% of the violent crimes against women and 3% of the violent crimes against men were by IPs (C. M. Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Burch and Gallop (2004) cite UCR data in reporting that 20% of violence experienced by women and 2% of violence experienced by men is from IPA. The National Violence Against Women survey discussed in the last chapter, which interviewed 8,000 women and 8,000 men in the United States by telephone, found that 22% of women and 7% of men reported experiencing IPA as victims (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998a; Tjaden et al., 2000). These national data squarely place IPA as a GBA—largely perpetrated by men/boys against women/girls. Many other studies do as well (Belknap, Hartman, & Lippen, 2010; Belknap & Melton, 2005; Button & Miller, 2013; R. P. Dobash et al., 1992; Hester, 2013; McLeod, 1983; Melton & Belknap, 2003; J. Miller & White, 2003; D. G. Saunders, 1986; Simon et al., 2010; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994; Warner, 2010). One of the questions most often asked about IPA is, “What about men who are battered and abused by women?” Some research reports “gender symmetry” in IPA perpetration and victimization, claiming that men and women are “mutually combative” (inflicting fairly equal amounts of violence/abuse on each other in intimate relationships) (e.g., Brush, 1990; Cantos et al., 1994; Magdol et al., 1997; Moffitt & Caspi, 1999; Steinmetz, 1977; Straus & Gelles, 1980, 1986). Given the researchers and others who continue to portray IPA as nongendered, it is necessary to summarize the many gender differences in IPA gender rates of victimization and offending. 1. Studies using CLS data routinely find significantly more women than men victims of IPA and more men than women offenders (Belknap et al., 2010; Hamilton & Worthen, 2011; Simon et al., 2010; Warner, 2010). 2. Rape (and other sexual abuse) as an IPA tactic is far more likely to be committed by men/boys against women/girls (Cho & Wilke, 2010; Coker et al., 2002; Crouch et al., 2009; C. M. Rennison, 2003). 3. Gender symmetry/similarity in IPA victimization and offending is most likely for the least violent tactics and abuses (Melton & Belknap, 2003; J. Miller & White, 2003; Warner, 2010). 4. Injuries, particularly serious injuries, are far more likely for IPA victims who are women/girls than men/boys (R. A. Berk et al., 1983; Brush, 1990; Cantos et al., 1994; Cho & Wilke, 2010; Crouch et al., 2009; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997; Loving,

1980; Molidor & Tolman, 1998; Oppenlander, 1982; C. M. Rennison & Welchans, 2002; Stets & Straus, 1990; Tjaden et al., 2000; Warner, 2010). 5. Among individuals reporting IPA victimization, women/girls report significantly higher levels of (or any) fear than men/boys (Button & Miller, 2013; Cantos et al., 1994; Coker et al., 2002; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Hester, 2013; Johnson & Bunge, 2001; Melton & Belknap, 2003; J. Miller & White, 2003; Morse, 1995; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; Próspero, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). 6. Among individuals who identify as IPA victims in research, the men/boys are more likely than the women/girls to report that they find their “victimization” humorous (Hamberger & Guse, 2002; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998). 7. Men/boys are far more likely than women/girls to kill their (ex)partners (Adhia et al., 2019; Ronet Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Belknap, Larson, et al., 2012; Biroscak et al., 2006; Bossarte et al., 2006; J. C. Campbell et al., 2007; J. K. Campbell et al., 2019; DeJong et al., 2011; L. Garcia et al., 2007; Gauthier & Bankston, 1997; Langford et al., 1998; C. Rennison, 2001; Serran & Firestone, 2004; Shai, 2010; P. H. Smith et al., 1998; Smucker et al., 2018; Stansfield & Semenza, 2019; Vittes & Sorenson, 2008). 8. Women/girls are for more likely to use violence with intimate partners out of self-defense, retaliation, or to escape the violence, including when they kill their (ex)partners (Barnett et al., 1997; Dichter, 2013; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Larance et al., 2019; Larance & Miller, 2017; Molidor & Tolman, 1998; D. G. Saunders, 1986; Schwartz, 1987). 9. Men are more likely than women to use IPA to control their current or former partners (Barnett et al., 1997; Edleson et al., 1991; Hamberger et al., 1997). 10. Women are more likely than men to report being stalked by an (ex)partner (Carbone-Lopez et al., 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b). 11. “Men are more likely than women to have more extensive criminal histories and higher recidivism rates than women” (Larsen & Hamberger, 2015, p. 1007). 12. Although most IPA research does not address trans and intersex individuals, such research indicates their particularly high risk of IPA, particularly sexual IPA, and this is especially so for trans women (more than for trans/gender-nonbinary, trans men, and intersex individuals) (Guadalupe-Diaz, 2019; Otero et al., 2015).

Despite the ongoing debate about the gendered nature of IPA offending and victimization, relatively little research has attempted to qualitatively address men’s accounts of their IPA victimizations. A notable exception is Durfee’s (2011) analysis of written narratives by men seeking protection orders against women (ex)partners, in which she identified three themes: First, the men’s descriptions of the violence they experienced focused on how they were still in control of the relationship; they suffered an assault but were not “victims.” Second, the men described their active resistance to the abuse but were careful to note that their actions were not “abusive” and that they were not the “abusers.” Finally, although most of the men described both verbal and physical abuse, most did not express a fear of their partner. The presence of these three elements in the men’s narratives of abuse suggests that the assertion of domestic violence victimization is gendered and that hegemonic masculinity [patriarchal dominance] shapes these narratives. (pp. 323– 324) A handful of other studies compare different-sex couple members’ accounts of the IPA in their relationships. One such study found that compared to women, men underestimate (1) the types/number of violence forms they use against their intimate female partners, (2) how often they use these forms of violence, (3) the likelihood of the abuse resulting in injuries, and (4) the types/numbers of injuries the woman/victim receives (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1998). A study on marital rape and aggression found very low correlation between wives’ and husbands’ versions in the same-couple reports of the husbands’ use of sexual aggression and coercion against their wives, with wives reporting far higher rates of sexual aggression and marital rape than did their husbands (Meyer et al., 1998). This indicates that we will find very different rates of marital rape based on whether we ask women or men about rape in their marriages and on the strong tendency for men to lie about or discount marital rapes they commit. Also recall the study of NCVS rape data from Chapter 8 and the “gag” effect of disclosing rape to an NCVS interviewer depending if the interview was on the phone (vs. in person) and whether a spouse was present during the interview (Yu et al., 2008). This study estimated that 92% of women who were victimized by IPA did not report this

victimization to the NCVS interviewer if their spouses were present during the interview, and 36% of women who were victims of IPA did not report it if the NCVS interview was over the phone (as compared to in person). Taken together, these findings indicate that some men/boys who selfreport IPA victimization committed by women/girls may exaggerate their IPA “victimhood” compared to woman/girl victims, at the same time that some women/girls do not report their IPA victimizations at all, or in a limited way. Men/boys appear more likely than women/girls to minimize their abuse of their partners and the resulting harms. Or, as I like to tell people, “If you think that IPA isn’t gendered, go hang out in the emergency room on Friday and Saturday nights.”

Stalking Rates Although stalking research is more recent, this scholarship overwhelmingly reports it as a GBA experienced primarily by women/girls and perpetrated primarily by men/boys (Baum et al., 2009; Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b). Tjaden and Thoennes’s (1998b) National Violence Against Women (NVAW) survey yielded the following statistics regarding stalking: (1) 78% of the victims are women and 22% are men, (2) 87% of stalkers are men and 13% are women, (3) women were about 8 times as likely as men to report stalking by former IPs, and (4) 94% of women stalkers are men and 60% of men’s stalkers are men. Of the women stalked by IPs, 50% were currently still in the relationship with this partner, 81% were physically assaulted by the partner, and 31% were sexually assaulted by the partner. Native Americans/Alaskan Natives reported the highest rates of stalking victimization (5% of men, 17% of women), followed by individuals of mixed races (4% of men, 11% of women), Whites (2% of men, 8% of women), African Americans (2% of men, 7% of women), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (2% of men, 5% of women). Baum and colleagues’ (2009) more recent assessment of stalking, drawing on NCVS data, found (1) 74% of stalking victims are women (26% are men), (2) men are equally likely to be stalked by a man as stalked by a woman, (3) women are almost 3 times as likely to be stalked by a man than a woman, (4) the risk of stalking is highest for divorced or separated individuals, and (5) individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 are most at risk of stalking victimization. A tenth of

victims were stalked by strangers and 30% were stalked by intimates: 13% by an ex-boy/girlfriend, 8% by an ex-spouse, 6% by a current spouse, and 3% by a current boy/girlfriend. Strangers accounted for 10% of the stalkers (Baum et al., p. 4). Englebrecht and Reyns (2011) study using NCVS stalking data found 82% of the victims were women (18% men), and compared to men stalking victims, women reported significantly more fear and other negative psychological outcomes. Similar to IPA research, stalking victim fear is highly gendered with women report significantly higher levels than men (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; C. E. Jordan et al., 2007; Nguyen et al., 2012; L. Sheridan & Lyndon, 2012). Some stalking studies focused on college/university women. One found 40% had ever experienced stalking, 18% had experienced stalking while at college, and 11% experienced stalking during the prior year at college (C. E. Jordan et al., 2007). In this study, “only” 16% of the stalkers were IPs, 44% were acquaintances, and 42% were strangers. Amar’s (2006) study of college women found a quarter (25%) reported stalking victimization and there were no race, age, or other demographic differences among stalking victims. A third (32%) of the stalkers were former boyfriends and 39% were someone who wanted to date them. (It was not clear if the remainder stalker VORs were strangers.) Thirteen percent of these college stalking victims were physically injured by their stalkers (Amar, 2006).

WALKER’S CYCLE THEORY OF VIOLENCE Psychologist Lenore E. Walker (1979) developed the “cycle theory of violence,” identifying three phases in a continuous cycle of IPA. Phase 1 is the tension-building phase, a “calm before the storm” where victims typically feel mounting pressure and the inevitability of an abusive explosion. Phase 2 is the acute abuse incident, when the abusive explosion actually occurs, and is usually the briefest of the three phases in the cycle. If the police are notified at all (only 10% of Walker’s sample had done so), it is usually during this phase. Phase 3, the honeymoon phase, is characterized by kindness and contrite loving behavior from the abuser, who begs forgiveness and promises not to be violent again. Often, when IPA first occurs, both the survivor and abuser want to believe that this violence/abuse was some fluke and that it will not recur. The abusers often appear sincere in their apologies and commitments to change, and they may even mean it at the beginning, which is why they are often so convincing. Abusers

may lavish their victims with gifts, temporarily quit drinking, or do other things to convince their victims that they love them and that the abuse will never recur. During the honeymoon phase the victim “gets a glimpse of her original dream of how wonderful love is … The traditional notion that two people who love each other surmount overwhelming odds against them prevails” (Walker, 1979, pp. 67–68). This phase is usually longer than Phase 2 but shorter than Phase 1. At the beginning of an IPA relationship, understandably, survivors are often confused, shocked, depressed, and in need of reassurance, making them vulnerable to the abusers’ promises to stop the abuse (Browne, 1987, pp. 62–63). As Phase 3 ends, Phase 1 begins again, and the cycle continues. Consistent with the “pure” and “paradigmatic” victims not capturing many victims (e.g., those who physically resist), not all IPA follows Walker’s three phases. Even when it does, it is useful to recognize that over time, in many cases the cycle changes: It revolves more frequently (i.e., the violence/abuse happens more often), the abuse becomes more violent (with more injuries), and there may be more formal involvement (e.g., the police or medical personnel) (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979, p. 179). One reason the cycle often becomes shorter is a tendency for the honeymoon phase to become shorter or completely disappear over time (Walker, 1983, p. 44), as both the victim and abuser realize the abuser is not going to stop and the victim becomes increasingly afraid to leave, has fewer resources to leave, and/or has more significant connections, particularly children, but also property (e.g., furniture, cars) and mortgages. Over time, the abusers may be more likely to blame their victims for the IPA the abusers perpetrate (Walker, 1983, pp. 117–123). Importantly, if the cycle evolves like this, the victims tend to lose hope and selfesteem at the same time they become more afraid, which make it more difficult to leave (Dobash & Dobash 1979, 140). Again, although Walker’s cycle appears to fit some IPA victims’ experiences and reactions, it does not fit all and should not be the only metric to decide if someone is an IPA survivor or abuser.

IPA AND STALKING ABUSERS Who Are the Intimate Partner Abusers?

The belief that IPA is simply a result of the loss of control on the part of the abuser is a myth. Evidence that IPA is indeed controllable comes from assessing locations of abuse on victims’ bodies and in private versus public spaces: IP abusers are usually controlled enough to restrict their blows to places on the body that are least likely to be visible to other people, such as the stomach, breasts, and thighs. IP rape is also viewed as an effective tool of control by the abuser because the damage is not visible, and, consistent with rape culture, the victim is more likely to be ashamed to report it even to friends or family, and particularly, to law enforcement officials. The fact that most IP abusers refrain from abusive behavior in public places also indicates a degree of control on their part. When abusers blame hitting their victims because they are upset with their bosses, the obvious question is, “How did they control themselves not to hit their bosses?” Of course, some IP abusers injure their victims’ easily viewable faces and/or in public places, which is more typical when the IPA has been occurring for a longer time. And certainly, some IP abusers are abusive to people outside their families as well as their IPs (Warner, 2010). Another “perfect storm” in IPA is the tendency for many IPA survivors to minimize their victimizations, at the same time that many IP abusers minimize the frequency and seriousness of the abuse (including extreme violence) that they perpetrate (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1998; Goodrum et al., 2001; Heckert & Gondolf, 2000). Abusers frequently use excuses and justifications when confronted with their culpability (Dutton 1988; Ptacek 1988). Excuses are used to deny responsibility (Ptacek 1988) and are related to situational characteristics such as being drunk, being frustrated, or losing control (Dutton 1988). Justifications are supposedly victim characteristics that “cause” the abuser’s abuse (Dutton 1988), and thus are used by the abusers to deny wrongness (Ptacek 1988). Justifications are often made up, are sexist, and include “rationalizing” the abuse as the victim’s fault for being sexually unresponsive, unfaithful, a bad cook, too independent, and not knowing when to “shut up” (Ptacek 1988). Clearly, none of these excuses and justifications legitimizes abuse. Notably, abusers are more likely to use justifications than excuses. That is, abusers are more likely to blame their victims for “making” them violent than they are to offer situations to explain their violence (Dutton 1988). Thus, intervention work with IP abusers should revolve around their acknowledgment that they choose to abuse, they need to choose not to abuse, and IPA is neither excusable nor justifiable.

Most IP abusers are not “sick,” and the intervention needs to provide ways for them to take accountability and stop their abusing, not have an excuse for it (Bancroft, 2002). Most of the IPA research reviewed in the section on frequency/rates situates it as a GBA. Clearly, given that most men/boys never abuse (any of) their intimate partners, IPA is not “natural” or biologically predetermined for men/boys. Research suggests that it is not so much being a man/boy but rather being socialized to embrace masculinity that IPA perpetration is so gendered (Boye-Beaman et al., 1993). IP abusers are from all socioeconomic backgrounds (Brisson, 1981; J. P. Flynn, 1977; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997). The two most significant characteristics common among IP abusers is that they are controlling (Crossman et al., 2016; Douglas & Fell, forthcoming; Fleury et al., 2000; Hardesty et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2015; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020; Johnson et al., 2017; Mitchell & Raghavan, 2019; Stark, 2009) and jealous (Barnett et al., 1995; Brisson, 1981; Browne, 1987; Molidor & Tolman, 1998; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; Piispa, 2002; Roberts, 2002, 2005; Silva et al., 2000; Walker, 1979, 1983). In many ways these characteristics coincide, as the overly jealous abusers believe they need to control their victims to keep them from others who may be sexually or otherwise interested in them or take up their victims’ time and attention in other ways. This relates to the abusers’ belief that their wives/ girlfriends “belong” to them, and this “justifies” their violent and abusive behavior and their jealousy of fetuses when their victims are pregnant. A study of 104 men incarcerated for killing their women IPs found “men’s possessiveness and jealousy, as well as fears and anger about separation and abandonment, are often difficult to unravel and sometimes bear little relationship to the reality of their marital state or the behavior of their woman partner” (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 2011, p. 124). A highly manipulative IPA tactic is when abusers threaten or attempt suicide as a means of trying to keep their victims in the relationship (Block & Christakos, 1995; Bossarte et al., 2006; Lund & Smorodinsky, 2001). Sometimes these threats start before any of the other abuses (other than signs of jealousy) and when the abuser first realizes his (her) partner is thinking of leaving the relationship. This highly coercive behavior, including when the abusers succeed in committing suicide, often and unfairly results in the surviving (ex)partners and their children feeling somewhat or completely responsible for leaving, or for the death of the abuser if the suicide is completed.

Similar to the last chapter on sexual GBA, IPA should not be explained away by the abusers’ alcohol/drug use (Kantor & Straus, 1987, p. 227) or mental illness (Gelles, 1980, p. 876). Most of these abusers do not restrict their IPA to times they are inebriated/high. Furthermore, while individuals may use being drunk/high as reasons to sing karaoke in a bar or ask someone to dance, using alcohol/drugs as an excuse for being racist, being anti-Semitic (e.g., Mel Gibson did so when stopped for drunk driving and yelling antiSemitic epithets at the police officer), kicking your pet, or committing IPA and child abuse, is a ruse. Most people know where to draw the line in acceptable behavior when they drink/use drugs; they understand the distinction between using alcohol/drugs to summon the courage to ask someone to dance and using alcohol or drugs as a reason (excuse) for bad and abusive behavior. Several researchers have focused on a hypothesized intergenerational transmission of violence in an attempt to explain IPA perpetration (Dutton & Painter 1981; Fagan, Stewart, & Hansen 1983). This theory contends that children who witness IPA and/or are abused by their parents learn that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflict (D. G. Dutton & Painter, 1981; Fagan et al., 1983). The intergenerational transmission of violence theory, then, views IPA as a learned behavior that passes down from one generation to another within the family system. In applying this theory, it is important to acknowledge that experiential learning may be gendered. One study found that men who were survivors of child abuse by their parents and/or who had watched their fathers abuse their mothers were more likely than men from non-abusive homes of origin, to view violence as an adequate response to family conflict and to abuse their own wives or girlfriends later in life (Fagan et al., 1983). However, the theory of intergenerational transmission of violence has received criticism, too, for assuming experiencing parent-perpetrated child abuse or witnessing parents’ IPA uniformly results in children’s perpetration as adults (Breines & Gordon, 1983; K. Kim, 2012). For instance, it is possible that growing up in an abusive home may result in an adult survivor’s strong commitment to disallow violence in her or his own home (Levendosky et al., 2000). One study reported that “the majority of wife assaulters have never witnessed parental violence” (D. G. Dutton, 1988, p. 47). In conclusion, while there are likely some implications for condoning violence if one grows up with it, the overall impact on later violent behavior is unclear.

Who Are the Stalkers? Stalking is highly gendered, with women/girls more likely to be the victims and men/boys more likely to be the perpetrators (Baum et al., 2009; Maran & Varetto, 2017; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Tjaden et al., 2000). As stated earlier, the NVAW survey findings indicate that women comprise 78% of the stalking victims and men comprise 87% of the stalking perpetrators (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b). Baum and colleagues’ (2009) report on stalking in the United States reported that about three quarters of the victims are women, and men are equally likely to be stalked by other men as women, while women are almost 3 times as likely to be stalked by men as by women. The NVAW survey findings confirm that most stalking victims know their stalkers: “Only 23% of female stalking victims and 36% of male stalking victims were stalked by strangers” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b, p. 5). Another significant manner in which stalking is gendered is that women are far more likely than men to be stalked by (ex)partners (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b, p. 6). Contrary to popular opinion, some IPA stalking victims are stalked by IPs while the relationship is still intact (C. E. Jordan et al., 2007; Melton, 2007; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b), although stalking typically starts when the victim leaves the relationship (Bennett, Cattaneo, & Lauren 2011; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). A meta-analysis of 175 stalking studies reported that about “half of all stalking emerges from romantic entanglements, especially and perhaps not surprisingly among college samples” (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, p. 70). However, one study of college women and stalking found only 16% of the stalkers were (ex)partners, 44% were acquaintances, and 41% were strangers (C. E. Jordan et al., 2007). Similar to IP abusers, stalkers are spread across demographic characteristics (Amar, 2006). The motivations for and risk factors of becoming a stalker strongly overlap with IPA, with the exception that it appears that mental illness is more common among stalkers than IPA offenders (Baum et al., 2009). The most common motivations for stalking are romantic pursuit, harassment, control, retaliation, anger, spite, and/or disruption of a new romantic relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Cailleau et al., 2018; Maran & Varetto, 2017). It is important to remember that IPA and stalking can and do occur in same-sex intimate relationships as well as in heterosexual ones (Baker et al., 2013; Edwards et al., 2015; Hassouneh & Glass, 2008; McDonald, 2012; L. P. Sheridan et al., 2019).

IPA AND STALKING VICTIMS/SURVIVORS Anyone can be so unfortunate as to have someone we date, marry, or have an intimate relationship with decide to abuse (including stalk) us, and anyone of us could have a stranger or acquaintance choose to stalk us. That said, characteristics about people, individually and/or within the social structure, make them more vulnerable for all types of abuses, including IPA and/or stalking.5 Although IPA victims are from all economic brackets, economic marginalization intersects with other means of limiting IPA victims’ agency (Bassuk et al., 2001; Boonzaier & van Schalkwyk, 2011; Browne et al., 1999; Craven, 1996; Forte et al., 1996; Gilroy et al., 2019). Related to this, women with less education and women who are unemployed appear to be more at risk of IPA (Babcock & DePrince, 2013; Piispa, 2002). Other potential risk factors for IPA are race/ethnicity (Potter, 2008; C. M. Rennison & Welchans, 2000); childhood victimization (Babcock & DePrince, 2012, 2013; Carbone-Lopez et al., 2012; Cole et al., 2008; Hines et al., 2007; McDonald, 2012), parenting status (having dependent children) (J. C. Campbell et al., 2007; Piispa, 2002), and, as noted previously, immigrant status (Abraham, 1999, 2000; Amanor-Boadu et al., 2012; Bui, 2004; Bui & Morash, 1999; Morash et al., 2007, 2008; ShiuThornton et al., 2005), physical and/or mental disability (Ballan & Freyer, 2012; Chang et al., 2003; Gilbert et al., 2012; Healey, 2006; Khalifeh et al., 2013; Nosek et al., 2001; Scherer et al., 2013; Thiara, 2012), and being trans or intersex, particularly trans female (Griner et al., 2017; Otero et al., 2015). 5

Given that there is less research on patterns of stalking victims outside of gender and victim–offender relationship (VOR), most of this section is on the IPA research on victims. For poor women who are IPA victims “the violence … is only one of the many other social problems they are likely to face” (Boonzaier & van Schalkwyk, 2011, p. 267). For immigrant women, “cultural factors —including language, migration history, family structure, gender roles, acculturation, religious tradition, and help-seeking behavior— influence and shape women’s perceptions and responses to [intimate partner] abuse” (Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005, p. 960). A study of Vietnamese immigrant women found a “general lack of awareness within their community” about IPA and that what they may have minimized as “marital conflict” turned into the recognition of “the concept of domestic violence is a result of migration to the United

States and the acculturation process” (Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005, pp. 965–966). A survey of college students found that women with disabilities (20%) were almost twice as likely as women without disabilities (11%) to experience any IPA victimization in the prior 12 months (Scherer et al., 2013).6 The “ableness” IPA differences among the women were most pronounced for psychological IPA (19% of disabled and 10% of able bodied), and among these IPA victims, women with disabilities were 3 times as likely as women without disabilities to report depressive symptoms (Scherer et al., 2013). 6

In this same study, disabled college men (12%) reported more IPA victimization than nondisabled men (7%), and this gap was also greatest for psychological IPA (11% vs. 6%) (Scherer et al., 2013). Research indicates that American Indian women, followed by African American women, experience significantly higher risks of IPA victimization (Potter, 2008; C. M. Rennison & Welchans, 2000). A study comparing interracial and intraracial couples found that “interracial relationships appear to entail no greater risk for the expression of physical violence than relationships than relationships in which both partners are White”; however, compared with White intraracial relationships, intraracial relationships of other races/ethnicity have higher rates of IPA (Carbone-Lopez, 2013, p. 17). A national study assessing women IPA survivors found that over two thirds sought formal and/or informal help, and women with more severe physical abuse were more likely to seek help (Flicker et al., 2011). Survivors were both physically and sexually abused were less likely to seek help (likely due to the shame and stigma associated with rape), whereas when they were physically abused and stalked, they were more likely to seek help, but psychological abuse concomitant with physical abuse was did not impact help-seeking (Flicker et al., 2011). Latina and White women were equally likely to seek help from family, but White women were more likely to seek help from friends. Another study found Latina and African American women were more likely to seek formal support from the police and hospitals, whereas White women were more likely to seek help from social services and mental health services (Satyen et al., 2019).

INHIBITORS TO LEAVING/RETURNING TO AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP AND WHAT HELPS SURVIVORS LEAVE At the same time that some IPA survivors are reluctant to identify themselves as such, many do. Contrary to how they are often portrayed, IPA “survivors are not helpless victims but active agents who strategize for safety” (Bermea et al., 2020, p. 988). For many, help- and safety-seeking increases as the abuse intensifies and/or as others identify them as victims (Baly, 2010; K. J. Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Few & Bell-Scott, 2002). One study of IP-abused mothers preparing to leave their abuser found all used mental planning to emotionally disengage and move forward, some of whom went directly to leaving, while others went from mental planning, to active planning, to leaving (Bermea et al., 2020). IPA survivors’ decisions to stay, leave (including leaving more than one time), return (including returning more than one time), presented in Table 10.2, are extremely complicated and individual. As Davies et al. (1998) point out, many of the reasons survivors stay in IPA relationships are the same reasons that they leave them, such as their worries about their children. In the beginning they are more likely to worry “my children need their father/other parent” and often about their own and their children’s financial well-being; these concerns function as motivators to stay, thereby keeping them in the relationship. Over time, they are more likely to worry about their children’s safety, which is a motivator to leave. It is vital to recognize that (1) IPA survivors’ fears of what might happen if/when they leave are not unfounded (as evidenced in this chapter); (2) some survivors leave and return more than once (for the many reasons covered in this chapter), (3) although there are many common phenomena in IPA dynamics, survivors can differ a great deal regarding their individual circumstances and abilities to leave safely, with financial stability, and so on. Thus, IPA survivors’ decisions to stay, leave, and return are complicated, individual, and not always a linear path. Some survivors leave many times. Survivors’ circumstances (e.g., the degrees of abuse/threat to the victims, degrees of abuse/threat to the children, victims’ financial and housing resources, victims’ social support, victims’ mental and physical health, etc.) are highly individualized, intersecting, and complicated. For example, some (ex)partners are more likely to harm, including kill, their victims, children, other family members, friends, coworkers, pets if their victims leave (Babcock &

DePrince, 2013; Belknap, Larson, et al., 2012; Block & Christakos, 1995; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 2011; Elizabeth, 2019; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016; Kyriakakis et al., 2012; Liem & Roberts, 2009; Løkkegaard et al., 2019; Sullivan et al., 2019). Overall, at the same time it is essential to recognize that some IPA survivors are reluctant to take on a “victim” identity, it is also vital to understand the researchdocumented “evidence that [intimate partner] abused women take active steps to address their situation as a result of conscious and purposive decision making” processes (Baly, 2010, p. 2298).

Risk Factors for Staying With and Leaving IP Abusers The risk factors for staying with and leaving IP abusers are remarkably similar, such as any means of marginalization already addressed (disability, immigration status, poverty, etc.). First, although this is improving, far too many CLS and health practitioners, members of the public, scholars, and sometimes even victim advocates focus more on why IP victims stay in (and/or return to) these relationships than why people abuse their partners. This response is victim-blaming and uninformed, implying or actually voicing that victims would leave if they wanted to, if they did not like being abused, and so on. First, we must ask why the focus is on why (some) victims stay or return rather than on why abusers abuse. Hoff (1990) aptly points out it would be more fruitful, and less victim blaming, to ask instead, “Why are some men violent?” “Why are women so easily victimized?” “Why are violent men allowed to stay?” and “Why should the victims rather than the abusers be expected to leave?” Of course, this needs to be expanded beyond gender binaries, but it recognizes the strong role of patriarchy in allowing women and girls’ (including trans women and trans girls’) disproportionate IPA victimization and focusing on that instead of why this is such a highly gendered (GBA) phenomenon (which includes gender presentation). Second, it is rarely acknowledged that many IPA survivors leave IPA relationships. There is a tendency to hear only about those who stay in or return to IPA relationships. Many survivors leave for good, even after the first abusive episode. However, understandably, sometimes internalized shame and the tendency of others to discount their victimizations keep these survivors from identifying themselves as IPA victims. Nonetheless, many women do stay or return for a while or indefinitely. Thus, it is important to understand the numerous

obstacles IPA survivors face and to ask, “What happens when IPA survivors leave?” (Hoff, 1990). One study that attempted to answer this question followed women who had left abusive partners for two years and found that one third of them were re-abused by their abusers during this time—even after leaving (Fleury et al., 2000). Moreover, the IP abusers most likely to keep abusing after the women left them were those who used more threats, more violence, and who were more jealous during the relationship (Fleury et al., 2000). Thus, it is important to remember that leaving an abusive relationship does not necessarily stop the abuse. Indeed, it might increase it, including to lethal levels. Third, some survivors stay in IPA relationships because they face overwhelming restrictions in their attempts to leave. Recall Homan’s (2019) structural sexism from Chapter 1 and the importance of looking at aggregate political, social, and economic realities that maintain patriarchal power, regarding wages and within the institutions of marriage and the family, and how this (in additional to gender) marginalizes by race/ethnicity, immigrant status, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, and so on. Forces restricting women’s independence and gender-nonbinary individuals’ autonomy, then, function at aggregate institutional levels as well as at individual levels. As demonstrated in Table 10.1, IPA is a complex phenomenon, and commensurately, as demonstrated in Table 10.2, survivors’ decisions to stay in or return to IPA relationships are also complicated and multifaceted. As previously stated, most of the same factors that inhibit survivors from leaving their IP abusers are the same ones that ultimately result in their leaving—except that they are now in a different category of these factors. Stated alternatively, just as the lack of financial security, self-esteem, citizenship, social support, CLS and other official support, and so on, limit survivors’ abilities to leave safely and survive, so does acquiring these same characteristics to help them leave and not return. Finally, many of the same factors related to IP survivors’ staying, leaving, and returning are also related to their risk factors for killing their abusers. Table 10.2 summarizes these factors and how they are distributed across motivators for IP abusers to abuse, and IP survivors to stay, leave, and to kill their abusers. Table 10.2 ● The (Sometimes) Overlapping Reasons Why Intimate Partner Abusers Abuse and the Very Overlapping Reasons Why (Some) Victims Stay With, Return to, Leave, or Kill Their Abusive Intimate Partners

The following reasons are not true for all survivors/victims and all abusers but are some of the patterns that have been found research.

Reasons

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

Abusers’ √ entitlement: Because they can —no one stops them Abusers’ reward, √ they get what they want: control Abusers view their partners as their property

√

Abusers’ jealousy/sexual proprietariness

√

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers

Reasons

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

Cultural expectations to control women/their partners

√

Abusers’ hostility toward women in general

√

Offenders’ and/or √ victims’ belief abuser is not responsible for IPA due to external reason (e.g., the abusers’ drug/alcohol use, bad boss, etc.)

√

Abusers’ and/or victims’ belief the victim is responsible for the IPA

√

√

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers

Reasons

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

Victims’ real or believed lack of ability to provide for self/children

√

Victims’ love of/for and commitment to the abuser

√

Abusers’ suicide threats or attempts (victim feels too guilty to leave)

√

Victims’ faith and hope abuser will change/stop being abusive

√

Victims’ beliefs dictate against divorce/leaving relationship

√

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers

Reasons

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

Victims’ dependence on abusers/abuser controls all money

√

Victims’ belief that their children need their father/other parent

√

Assumption women are responsible for family/relationship problems

√

Victims’ access to services and resources to facilitate leaving safely

√

√

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers

Reasons

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers

Victims unsure whether selves/children are better off with or without abuser

√

√

Victims’ guilt feelings about responsibility to nurture/take care of the abuser

√

√

Victims’ and/or abusers’ minimizing the abusiveness and/or injury levels

√

√

Victims’ fear abusers will kill them

√

√

√

Victims’ fear abusers will harm their children

√

√

√

Reasons

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers

Police, family, friend, shelter worker, etc., identifies victim as “victim”

√

Victims’ fears of becoming violent against abusers

√

Abusers are abusing (physical, sexual, etc.) the children

√

√

Abusers increased the level of abusing (physical, sexual, etc.) the children

√

√

Victims’ lost faith and hope that abuser will change/stop being abusive

√

√

Reasons

Victims’ selfdefense during an abusive incident started by the abuser

What Motivators Why Motivates for IP (Some) IPA (Some) Abusers Victims IPA to Abuse Stay/Return Victims to Leave

√

Risk Factors for IPA Victims to Kill Their Abusers √

Source: Data from Amanor-Boadu et al. (2012); Baly (2010); Browne (1987); Chang et al. (2010); Davies et al. (1998); Ewing (1987); K. J. Ferraro & Johnson (1983), Lacey (2010); Pyles et al. 2012; Shui-Thornton et al. (2005).

One of many IPA phenomena that make leaving difficult or even impossible is called entrapment. Certainly, there are IPA victims literally tied/locked up, but there is also the entrapment of IP abusers’ threats to kill the survivors, and/or children, pets, family, and so on that make it unrealistic to simply leave. But there are also other coercive psychological entrapments that IP abusers sometimes manage, such as to make victims believe they cannot leave. Survivors sometimes describe the psychological effects of abuse and exploitation as “brainwashing” (Finkelhor, 1983, p. 20). A study of college women in abusive relationships examined psychological entrapment, where an individual’s decision-making regarding conflict resolution in relationships is related to their time, financial, and other resource investment in the relationship (Katz et al., 2012). They found women in longer relationships with their abusive partners were more likely to sacrifice more of their own self-interests to make the relationship work than women in shorter IPA relationships. Moreover, “many women may not notice the degree to which they are exerting effort to improve their relationships via everyday sacrifices because such behaviors are an expected part of being female, being involved in a relationship, or both” (Katz et al., 2012, p. 465). Bonomi and her colleagues (2013) applied IPA entrapment in an analysis of E. L. James’s trilogy of the highly popular novels starting with Fifty Shades

of Grey. They convincingly document how this novel (then movies) about the relationship between a 28-year-old mega-millionaire man and a 22-year-old college student were portrayed as erotic and harmless, with an extensive amount of violence and entrapment IPA, including sexual violence, stalking, intimidation, isolation and humiliation to control the victim.

Characteristics Related to IPA Survivors’ Staying/Leaving Decisions A study of heterosexual African American women college students in psychologically abusive dating relationships found a four-stage process to their leaving the relationships: First was assessing the relationship, followed by separating from the abusive partner, then reestablishing social networks, and finally gaining a sense of selfempowerment (Few & Bell-Scott, 2002). Another study examined 21 African American women’s acts of resistance and disengagement from abusive IPs and reported three stages of disengagement (Taylor, 2002). First came defining moments, which were life-altering and pivotal moments that many women called “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” For some women it was hearing other IP survivors’ stories, and for others it was witnessing their abusers’ violence toward another person. Second was moving away, or strategies to emotionally and physically distance themselves from their abusive partners. This could mean moving to a different city and/or going to a safehouse. The final stage, moving on, had to do with sustaining the separation from the former partner, and typically included a family and friend support network. A study comparing IPA survivors who left versus stayed with their abusers found that “victims more financially independent from the perpetrators were more likely to leave,” and survivors who received government subsidies (welfare) were more likely (or able?) to leave their abusers than those not receiving assistance (J. Kim & Gray, 2008). This study also found that those who had witnessed their own parents’ IPA (p. 1472) and women with higher levels of fear and lower levels of self-esteem were less likely to leave (p. 1477). “Fear of retaliation” is a strong contributor to many IPA survivors staying in these relationships (Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005, 970). Spiritual reasons for staying have also been given by some women (K. J. Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Shiu-Thornton et al., 2005).

A national IPA study comparing Black and Latina women found few differences in their decisions to leave abusive partners; for example, increases in household income and psychological IPA increased the women’s likelihood of leaving (Lacey, 2010). Black women (67%), however, stayed at a slightly higher rate than Latinas (60%), and being married was more associated with Black (84%) than Latina (54%) woman staying with their abusers (Lacey, 2010). Another study of women IPA survivors found that there were no differences among women of Color and White women’s leaving these relationships in terms of psychological abuse and fear of being single, but improved socioeconomic status was more strongly related to white women’s leaving (Lacey et al., 2011). Also, white women who had been with their abusive partners for more than five years were more likely to leave than similarly situated women of Color. Overall, most of the women who left stayed away for less than a month and women of Color left more frequently than did white women (Lacey et al., 2011). These studies emphasize the importance of accounting for racial/ethnic differences among IPA survivors in research, dynamics, and formal (i.e., CLS) and informal (i.e., friends and family) responses to them. Notably, in addition to staying with/returning to IP abusers, societal and CLS IPA victim-blaming escalates when an IP survivor has had more than one abusive IP. In some ways this revictimization is not surprising, given the number of IP abusers and the number of romantic interests many of them have (i.e., they are serial partner abusers). Additionally, surviving IPA can result in depression and other negative outcomes (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011), which are likely to deter the ability to make healthy decisions. Cole and her colleagues (2008) interviewed women 5 weeks (Time 1), and again 12 months (Time 2), after obtaining a protection order against a violent IP. They found that between Times 1 and 2, a third of the women were with their same (violent) partner, 60% were with a new partner, and 7% had stayed with both the same (violent) partner and had a new partner. Of those with a new partner, 35% reported IPA by the new partner, and women who were most at risk of having a second abusive partner were more dependent on drugs and had a greater cumulative lifetime of victimizations (e.g., sexual, physical and emotional child abuse, stalking, etc.).

IPA AND STALKING AND THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM (CLS) The CLS responses to IP survivors, consistent with the CLS responses to sexual abuse survivors, often focuses on viewing the survivors as “uncooperative” or “reluctant,” without understanding, or perhaps caring, why some IP survivors do not participate or stop participating (Davies et al., 1998; McLeod, 1983; Randall, 2004). Some scholars portray IP survivors as having “learned helplessness,” but Gondolf and Fisher (1988), tongue-in-cheek, ask whether the CLS officials (police, prosecutors, judges) have “learned helplessness” when they fail to do anything for the IP survivors who are asking for arrests, convictions, and so on. Research suggests that IP survivors, rather than being uncooperative or reluctant, are more likely extremely frustrated with a system that fails to address their victimizations (Browne, 1987; Erez & Belknap, 1998; A. Jones, 1994; McLeod, 1983; Randall, 2004). For example, despite the widely held belief that all IP survivors are upset when their abusers are arrested, even to the point of attacking the police themselves, a considerable body of research reports that police have historically been unwilling to make arrests even when the abused woman requests it (Bowker, 1982; S. E. Brown, 1984; Buzawa & Austin, 1993; Dolon et al., 1986; Erez & Belknap, 1998; K. J. Ferraro, 1989; Oppenlander, 1982; Pagelow, 1981; Websdale, 1995; Websdale & Johnson, 1997), even though IPA survivors may be more likely than other assault victims to make such a request (Eigenberg et al., 1996; Oppenlander, 1982). One large NIBRS study of physical assaults by same-sex and different-sex partners found that women victimized by men were no less likely to cooperate with the police than victims in same-sex couples, or when a man was the IPA victim of a woman defendant (Felson & Lantz, 2016). Some research found that victim injury has no bearing on a police officer’s likelihood of arresting a violent IP (S. F. Berk & Loseke, 1981; Eigenberg et al., 1996; D. A. Smith & Klein, 1984; Worden & Pollitz, 1984). Moreover, although police are more likely to arrest IP abusers when a weapon is present or used, the levels of arrest even when a weapon is present have historically been quite low (R. Bachman & Coker, 1995; Buzawa & Austin, 1993; Eigenberg et al., 1996). Finally, research documents the need for victim advocates, the police, and court officials responding to IPA to ask about and seriously respond to stalking when it happens in the context of IPA (Amar,

2006; Blaauw et al., 2002; Cattaneo et al., 2011; Coker et al., 2008; Galeazzi et al., 2009; C. E. Jordan et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2011; Melton, 2004; Norris et al., 2011; L. Sheridan et al., 2001; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Tjaden, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998b; Tjaden et al., 2000). Melton (2004) found that two thirds of 21 IPA survivors who also reported stalking by their abusers described frustrating experiences with the police and courts, including minimization of the stalking and saying there was nothing they (the police or courts) could do about the stalking. At the same time, other research reports the ignorance and even disdain that many court officials (prosecutors, judges, and public defenders) hold for IPA victim advocates, as well as victims (Hartman & Belknap, 2003).

The Police Police response to IPA, unlike their response to other assaults, has traditionally included a formal or informal policy of arrest avoidance (Bell & Bell, 1991; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Erez, 1986; Finesmith, 1983; Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; Oppenlander, 1982; Rowe, 1985; Schechter, 1982; Stanko, 1985, 1989; Tong, 1984; Zorza, 1992). Despite the fact that IPA is the most common violent crime reported to police (Ventura & Davis, 2005, p. 255), before the 1960s, police training in IPA was rare, and few departments had policies on how the police should respond to these calls. In the 1960s, mediation training and policies were implemented in many departments, encouraging police officers to treat IPA as merely a breach of the public peace and to calm the parties down. Evidence that mediation does not deter IPA is apparent from the vast number of repeat calls police receive to return to couples with whom they previously used mediation (Oppenlander, 1982). Additionally, many feminist legal scholars reported that mediation was as ineffective as nonintervention and may be worse in that it could be perceived by victims, offenders, and witnesses, including children, that IPA is not serious (Finesmith, 1983; Gee, 1983; Rowe, 1985; Stanko, 1985; Tong, 1984). In the 1970s and 1980s, along with recognizing that mediation was ineffective, three additional events spurred the pro-arrest domestic violence policies. First, the feminist movement was gaining momentum and organizing around men’s violence against women, including the implementation of the first women’s IPA shelters and rape crisis centers. Second, IPA survivors and feminist organizations and lawyers, often in class-action lawsuits, began taking police

departments to court for failing to arrest their abusers and leaving them in dangerous and life-threatening situations (Eppler, 1986). Using the Fourteenth Amendment to contend that they were not treated equally by the police as persons assaulted by strangers there were many successful court outcomes. Probably the most famous of these is the 1984 Thurman v. City of Torrington case, where Tracey Thurman’s repeated calls to the police and the restraining order she obtained were ineffective in acquiring police protection. During Thurman’s final and very extreme battering, the police not only delayed in responding to the call but watched for some time as her abuser severely assaulted her. Thurman suffered severe and permanent physical damage. However, Thurman not only won her lawsuit against the police department, but the aftermath of this lawsuit also resulted in Connecticut’s governor forming a state task force to examine responses to IPA (Davies et al., 1998). The third event influencing police policy changes in police responses was Sherman and Berk’s (1984) Minneapolis domestic violence experiment that was replicated in other cities in the United States and Canada in the 1980s with the same findings: Compared to nonintervention and mediation, police arrest of IP abusers was significantly more likely to decrease future IPA (R. A. Berk & Newton, 1985; Jaffe et al., 1986). This finding that arrested abusers were the least likely to recidivate, combined with the successful lawsuits brought by women survivors of IPA against police departments (for failing to protect them), and pressure from feminist organizations, particularly women’s IPA safehouse staff and volunteers, resulted in what has been termed pro-arrest policies for police responses to IPA in the United States and many other countries.7 That is, when police respond to incidences of IPA, an arrest should be made unless there are good, clear reasons why an arrest would be counterproductive (Sherman & Berk, 1984, p. 270). A study comparing police likelihood to arrest IP assaulters versus other assaulters before pro-arrest policies (described later) found the police were 17% significantly more likely to arrest non-IP than IP assaulters (Eigenberg et al., 1996). Another study in a city before a pro-arrest policy was implemented found that regardless of IPA offenders’ personal characteristics (e.g., race, prior violence, etc.), they were less likely to recidivate if they felt the police acted in a procedurally fair manner (even when police arrested the suspects) (Paternoster et al., 1997). Many studies have found low compliance with pro-arrest mandates and policies (Balos & Trotzky, 1988; Durfee, 2012; K. J. Ferraro, 1989; Lawrenz, Lembo, & Schade, 1988), which might explain how even a post–pro-arrest policy implementation study

found that non–wife assaulters are still more likely to be arrested than wife assaulters (Avakame & Fyfe, 2001). This study also found that police were more likely to arrest when the victim was a White, wealthy, older, suburban woman. However, another study found that regardless of the VORs, men were more likely to be arrested when assaulting a woman than when assaulting another man (Lally & DeMaris, 2012). Importantly, two post–pro-arrest implementation studies found when controlling for other variables, police are more likely to arrest women than men suspects for domestic violence (Durfee, 2012; Hamilton & Worthen, 2011). Regarding victim participation (cooperation), one study found women who had experienced police responses to their IPA victimizations wanted the police to take more action without depending on their active participation (Dichter et al., 2011). Another study found that police did not take serious verbal threats seriously if they did not include physical violence, leaving the women perceiving the police response as inadequate and unfair (Stewart et al., 2013). 7

I use the term pro-arrest policies to include both mandatory arrest and presumptive domestic violence arrest policies. Significantly, some research indicates that the implementation of proarrest domestic violence policies results in significant decreases in IP homicides (Jolin, 1983; C. M. Rennison & Welchans, 2000). These studies point out two important issues: (1) There is more than one way to measure the effectiveness of arrest, and (2) not only might pro-arrest policies save abused women’s lives but these policies are also likely to reduce the number of women forced into a situation where they kill their abusers in self-defense. Replications of the Minneapolis domestic violence experiment in the 1990s reported arrest did not deter IP abusers (Dunford, 1992; Dunford et al., 1990; J. D. Hirschel et al., 1992; J. Hirschel & Hutchison, 1992; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman et al., 1992), although many feminist legal scholars criticized the replications (Bowman, 1992; Zorza, 1992). This does not mean that all feminists support pro-arrest policies. First, there is concern that these policies are implemented discriminately— that abusers of Color, from less wealthy neighborhoods, who are immigrants, and so on, are more likely than their counterparts to be arrested or further processed by the CLS (Durfee & Goodmark, 2019; Goodmark, 2018; Gruber, 2012; Hoff, 1990; S. L. Miller, 1989, 2005; Stanko, 1989; Stark, 2004). A large IPA study of a midwestern county found that same-sex women couple defendants were the least likely

to have their IPA cases dismissed (relative to same-sex men’s and woman-on-men IPA cases) (Romain & Freiburger, 2016). Using the same data and controlling for many legal and extralegal variables, the authors found that among IPA defendants, although, relative to women, men received harsher sanctions of all kinds (i.e., release on recognizance vs. bail, higher bail amounts prison vs. jail time, longer prison/jail sentences), Latinx defendants received higher bail amounts and were more likely to be detained until sentencing compared to White defendants, and African American defendants were more likely than White defendants to receive prison (over jail) time (Frieburger & Romain, 2018). Second, although there has been some concern that arresting abusers may increase subsequent violence toward their victims, research suggests this is not the case (D. Hirschel & Hutchison, 2003; Maxwell et al., 2001). A third feminist concern with the pro-arrest policies is that they take decision-making completely away from the victims, who likely already feel powerless (Durfee, 2012; Hoff, 1990; Leisenring, 2011; Mills, 1999, 2003; Rowe, 1985; Stanko, 1989). More specifically, if the victims do not want their abusers arrested, should their desires be honored? One study reported women’s “failed identity” frustration not only when the police arrested their partners when they did not want them arrested but also when police arrested the women who were the IPA victims (Leisenring, 2011). Thus, it is not surprising that women abused by their IPs report the most satisfaction when the police do what they want them to do: Arrest their abusers when the women want them arrested and do not arrest them when the women do not want them arrested (Fleury, 2002). A study of older African American women and their communities in the South reported the following barriers to reporting IPA to the police: (1) gender roles prescribing the “good and faithful wife” (with religious restrictions); (2) age dependency combined with lack of income, housing, transportation, and good health; (3) and mistrust of the police and CLS in general (Lichtenstein & Johnson, 2009). The biggest feminist concern with pro-arrest and more serious court responses is what this has done to IPA survivors, particularly the more marginalized they are by race/ethnicity, immigrant status, poverty, LBGTQI+ status, and so on. Chapter 5 included the huge increase in arresting women on domestic violence charges in the past couple of decades. Pro-arrest policies resulted in the previously almost unheard of and certainly unintended practice of arresting women for domestic violence, either instead of or along with their

male IPs (Belknap & Grant, 2018; Buzawa & Hotaling, 2006; DeLeonGranados et al., 2006; Durfee, 2012; Frye et al., 2007; D. Hirschel et al., 2007; D. Hirschel & Buzawa, 2002; D. A. Jones & Belknap, 1999; S. L. Miller, 2005; Muftic et al., 2007, 2015). Arresting victims and offenders is referred to as dual arrests and arresting only the victim is referred to as retaliatory arrest (Frye et al., 2007). Dual or retaliatory arrests are often the result of some victims who resist or fight back against their abusers (Dasgupta, 2001, 2004; Dasgupta & Eng, 2003; Dichter, 2013; Goodmark, 2018; D. Hirschel & Buzawa, 2002; D. A. Jones & Belknap, 1999; Larance et al., 2019; M. E. Martin, 1997; Melton & Belknap, 2003; S. L. Miller, 1989, 2001, 2005; Muftic et al., 2007, 2015; Perilla et al., 2003; Randall, 2004; Stanko, 1989; Stark, 2004). But these victim arrests, whether dual or retaliatory, can be carefully orchestrated by the abusers. IP abusers who use violence and threats of violence to establish dominance and control over the victim may manipulate the system to use arrest as a tool in the battering, whether or not the victim has used violence. They may falsely claim that the victim has used violence, or that the victim is the predominant aggressor in the incident or in the relationship, and then use arrest to further decrease the victim’s freedom. (Dichter, 2013, p. 83) Thus, the pro-arrest policy can backfire resulting in IPA victims’ significant risk of being arrested as offenders (Dasgupta & Eng, 2003; Dichter, 2013; Durfee, 2012; Frye et al., 2007; D. A. Jones & Belknap, 1999; M. E. Martin, 1997; S. L. Miller, 2005; Muftic et al., 2007). As expected, being arrested for domestic violence when one is the victim is “traumatizing, degrading, and shocking” (Dichter, 2013, p. 87). One study found that dual arrests were most likely in departments where the officers perceived these arrests as the desire of their departments and in cases where both members of the couple were injured (Finn et al., 2004). Not surprisingly, when a victim is arrested as part of a dual arrest, she is less interested in pursuing prosecution of her abuser (Bui, 2001). Some departments, to get away from dual arrests, have opted for primary aggressor rules, directing that only one person in a couple should be arrested in most IPA calls. Unfortunately, women who use weapons, often a kitchen knife, to level the playing ground when they are being seriously threatened or

assaulted are often arrested as the primary aggressor and the abusive man goes free. An analysis of NCVS data found IPA arrests unrelated to the likelihood of abusers recidivating, but simply reporting to the police decreased recidivism by 34% (Xie & Lynch, 2017). A study using 2005 NIBRS from 28 states and the District of Columbia found that states with mandatory domestic violence arrest policies—the most inclusive pro-arrest policy—had the highest rates of men-only arrests (7%), women-only arrests (5%), and dual arrests (43%), yet in 46% of the cases there was no arrest (Durfee, 2012). The states with the less inclusive pro-arrest policies—the preferred (as opposed to mandatory) domestic violence arrest policies—had 68% of cases with no arrests, 24% dual arrests, 5% man-only, and 3% women-only arrests. This study found that the police are more likely to make dual arrests when women rather than when men severely injure their partners. Furthermore, woman-only and dual arrests were most likely when the men partners were African American (p. 78). Most surprising in this study was that “multivariate analyses indicate that after controlling for incident and individual characteristics, mandatory arrest policies disproportionately affect women” over men for being arrested for domestic violence (p. 79). D. Hirschel and Hutchison’s (2003) study of women IPA survivors found 30% wanted the police to arrest their abusers, 41% wanted the police to take their abusers away but not arrest them, 12% wanted the police to warn their abusers, 6% wanted the police to make the abusers leave the survivors alone, and 4% wanted the police to let her leave by herself. Notably, survivors who were African American (as opposed to White), poorer, had been hit more frequently in the preceding 6 months, had been hit more severely in the current incident, and whose offenders had prior arrest records were more likely to want their abusers arrested. This may be explained by Flicker’s (2011) study finding that African American and Latinx women were more likely than white women to seek help from the police. Moreover, D. Hirschel and Hutchison’s (2003) study found victims who wanted their abusers arrested were more likely to be revictimized by their abusers following the arrest than victims who did not want their abusers arrested, indicating survivors’ accurate decision-making in why they want arrests. A New York study of IPA survivors’ helpline calls found that there were no arrests in 41% of the cases, retaliatory arrests (of women victims) in 37% of the cases, dual arrests in 14% of the cases, and “unwanted arrests” in 8% of the cases (i.e., where the abuser was arrested when the [woman] victim did not want him to be)

(Frye et al., 2007).8 Notably, both dual and retaliatory arrests were more likely among women victims who made more money. No arrests were most common among Latinx couples, couples with public assistance, and where the abuser stalked the victim. Alarmingly, the “unwanted arrests” were rated by the victim advocates answering the phones as the victims in the most dangerous relationships (Frye et al., 2007). The problems with police responses to IPA survivors is evident in a study found that 90% of women that contacted CLS for a previous IPA victimization “did not contact the police for some or all recurrences” (Gover et al., 2013, p. 99). 8

These percentages were computed by the author after removing the cases where the arrest combination was not recorded in Frye et al.’s (2007) study. It is important to note studies with some positive findings about police responses. One study of over 300 pregnant Latina IPA survivors found that of the 23% who had used the police, almost three fourths rated the police as somewhat or very effective, and women who used the police reported less serious abuse than those who had not used the police (Wiist & McFarlane, 1998). Another study found that 80% of women victims of IPA who encountered the police rated the experience with the officers favorably (Apsler et al., 2003). Survivors were most satisfied with police efforts to arrest their abusers and help with obtaining restraining orders (when these were actions they desired), but they were dissatisfied with the inability of the police to help them obtain counseling. The women with the lowest police satisfaction ratings were those who wanted their abusers arrested but they were not. Notably, even most of the women who did not want their abusers arrested but whose abusers were arrested reported that they would call the police again in the future (Apsler et al., 2003). Another study found that IPA women victims typically rated their police experience as between neutral and somewhat satisfied (Fleury, 2002). Notably, when the survivors felt the police were supportive, they were more satisfied with the police response, and they reported higher satisfaction when one of the officers was female (Fleury, 2002). Fewer studies have assessed police responses to stalking; an exception is Brady and Nobles’s (2017) impressive study of all stalking calls to the Houston Police Department over 8 years. Of 3,756 calls for service from victims being stalked, none resulted in a stalking incident report or arrest, although some resulted in harassment or protection order violation reports.

Consistent with many feminist criminologists combatting carceral feminism, feminist scholar Leigh Goodmark’s (2018) recent and extraordinarily documented book, Decriminalizing Domestic Violence: A Balanced Policy Approach to Intimate Partner Violence, provides a compelling case for doing just that: decriminalizing IPA. She carefully traces the U.S. history of criminalizing IPA since the 1980s, relating it to mass incarceration and the disproportionate effect it has had on African American and Latinx individuals and communities. Goodmark is incredibly effective in detailing how the pro-arrest policies have led to women’s increased incarceration, particularly through such practices as dual arrests, and of course, the disproportionate impact this has on the most marginalized women. Larance and Miller (2017) found the women who used force and were arrested for IPA were frequently highly marginalized with limited options (p. 1553).

Protection/Restraining Orders (POs) Protection orders (POs), also known as restraining orders or stayaway orders, are a legal intervention in which one person who is deemed to be a threat to another is ordered to have no contact with the person (and usually to stay a specified distance away) (Sorenson & Shen, 2005, p. 912). POs were developed to provide a remedy for survivors of stalking and other harassment and to assist in prosecution (Grau et al., 1984). Unlike the remainder of the CLS, with these orders “the survivor has the power to initiate the case and has some control over the possible outcomes” (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016, p. 14). Most POs are sought by women with abusive (ex)partners (Sorenson & Shen, 2005). POs potentially offer additional protections for IPA and stalking victims, but they can be challenging to obtain when survivors have limited or no transportation or money and/or are isolated and monitored by their abusers. Police officers and victim advocates are often the ones who encourage IPA survivors to obtain POs, and victim advocates are ideally (but not always) available to help survivors with the process. One study found that the more economically dependent women were on their abusers, the less likely they were to complete the application process of obtaining the orders (Fernandez et al., 1997). Additionally, the more severely abused the woman, the less likely she was to obtain the order, suggesting the abuse kept her in fear of completing the application (Fernandez et al., 1997). Research indicates that women pursue POs when they have decided they have “had enough” (Fischer & Rose, 1995), suggesting that this may be the time that some women feel ready or it is

necessary to leave the relationship. Over a fifth of the women obtaining protection orders in one study also reported to researchers that they had been sexually assaulted by their IPs (Logan, Shannon, & Walker, 2005). POs have been found to be more useful to survivors who are fiscally independent, are in less severe IPA relationships, and have fewer ties to the abuser, but POs have proven far less effective, the longer the abusive relationship, the more violent the abuser, and when the abuser has a history of additional offending and/or has mental health problems (Chadhuri & Daly, 1992; Dowling et al., 2018; Grau et al., 1984). Other research documents the additional problems that rural, as compared to urban, women face in obtaining POs (Logan et al., 2005). More recent research addresses the hitch with mothers who have IPA POs. IP abusers with shared custody or visitation rights are often allowed to continue to stalk, harass, and even abuse the survivors who obtained POs (Bancroft et al., 2011; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016; Kernic et al., 2005; Rosen & O’Sullivan, 2005). An ethnographic study of women IP survivors with children seeking POs found the “visitation arrangements determined by judicial offenders in hearings tended to be informal; the court provided little support or information. Legal representation only mattered for offenders” (FleurySteiner et al., 2016, p. 3). A study of Latina IPA survivors found that relative to documented survivors, the undocumented survivors were less likely to know how to obtain POs, or even what they were, yet they were “more likely to believe that their partner would follow an order and that police would arrest their partner for violation” (Messing et al., 2017, p. 199). Although some CLS officials and victim advocates report frustration with IP survivors who obtain and then drop POs, Ford (1991) found that POs are an important negotiating tool survivors use to gain power in their relationships with their abusers and to stop the abuse. Thus, regardless of whether some survivors decide to drop POs, police who routinely fail to enforce them when IP survivors report their violations are not doing their jobs and are likely reinforcing abusers’ beliefs that it is their right to violate their (ex)partners. In doing so, the survivors are typically at elevated, even lethal, risks of violence. Other studies indicate the potential effectiveness with IPA POs, finding POs are “associated with reduced police incidents and emergency department visits both during and after the order” (Kothari et al., 2012, p. 2846), as well as reduced sexual violence IPA and improved mental health (C. V. Wright & Johnson, 2012).

In sum, research indicates a resistance among some police officers to enforce POs, making them useless and frustrating for the IPA and stalked victims who went to the efforts to get them (Erez & Belknap, 1998; Logan et al., 2005; Pagelow, 1993; Rigakos, 1997; Tong, 1984). A national study found that among IPA survivors, African American women were more likely than white women to seek POs (Flicker et al., 2011, p. 1078), and another documented that cross-POs (when both individuals in the IPA couple acquire a PO), like dual arrests, have led to what they label as a victim-to-prison pipeline for many women of Color.

The Courts Historically, court officials (prosecutors, district attorneys, and judges), like the police, often failed to respond to the plight of abused women. Early British Common Law established the “rule of thumb,” a ruling that allowed husbands to beat their wives with rods no larger than the thickness of their thumbs. A study of the abuse of women in San Diego County in the late 1800s found that the white male prosecutors, judges, juries, and police tended to respond with bipolar extremes: harshness or leniency (Parker, 1997, p. 294). More specifically, in those few cases where there was overwhelming evidence (particularly if the wife was murdered), serious action was taken against the abusive man. However, the more typical response was leniency, not wanting to compromise the husband’s financial and social reputation. Like current-day processing, men of Color were most likely to have the harshest responses, as were poor men, and women with bad reputations were rarely seen as worthy of the court’s time. In 1824, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld this ruling. “Progress” was made in 1864 with North Carolina’s “curtain rule”: The law could interfere with a husband’s chastisement of his wife (go beyond the curtain of the home) but only where the husband’s violence resulted in permanent injury to the wife (Tong, 1984, p. 128). Thus, courts have historically defined some forms of wife abuse as legal. With the implementation of pro-arrest policies, there has been a huge increase in the number of IPA cases that reach the court system. One study suggested that court officials (prosecutors, public defenders, and judges) rubber-stamp police officers’ resistance to pro-arrest policies and police ambivalence about IPA cases (Hartman & Belknap, 2003). A particularly vulnerable time for women who have decided to press charges and follow through (assuming the prosecutor is willing to go

through with the case) is the pretrial period. It is not unusual for abusers to attempt to woo back their estranged victims by promising they will start over and stop abusing, or if that does not work, to intimidate their victims with threats of what they will do if the victims go to court (Belknap, Chu, et al., 2012; Belknap et al., 2001; Bonomi et al., 2011; Melton, 2007). One study found IPA survivors were almost twice as likely to want to file charges against their abusers (37%) as they were to want to go to trial (70%) (Hare, 2010). Some of the barriers survivors report that concern or keep them from going to court include that courts are seen as confusing and/or frustrating (Bennett et al., 1999; Dichter et al., 2011), they are afraid of their abusers’ retaliation (Bennett et al., 1999; Dichter et al., 2011), they still love their abusers (Dichter et al., 2011), they are concerned about their children (Dichter et al., 2011), they have logistical barriers such as no transportation or the abuser stole or broke their phone or computer (Belknap, Chu, et al., 2012; Dichter et al., 2011), and they feel conflict over the prospect of their abusers’ potential incarceration (Bennett et al., 1999). But abused women may quit pursuing (drop) a case against their IP abusers if they are upset the case was minimized by being charged as a misdemeanor instead of a felony (Ptacek, 1999). Ptacek’s (1999) interviews with judges found their attitudes frighteningly like the abusers’ in the manners they minimized and denied the victims’ abuse in their courtrooms. He also noted that the judges frequently incorrectly applied the law and used biased attitudes toward the victims in their processing and decisions. Women IPA survivors who used the CLS for past victimizations are concerned about the courts’ future responses (Gover et al., 2013). In one study, women’s desire to take their IPA victimization to court was significantly stronger the more serious the level of injury sustained (Hare, 2010). Another study found women were more motivated to move forward with prosecution when they (1) reached a “breaking point” and could not see how they could continue in the abusive relationship; (2) started worrying the abuse was damaging their children; and (3) were pushed by victim advocates, coworkers, family members, or friends (Dichter et al., 2011). One study in a pro-arrest jurisdiction (that had not implemented a nodrop policy as defined later in this section) found that two thirds of the cases were dismissed, mostly by the prosecutor and a few by the judge for lengthy pending periods (D. Hirschel & Hutchison, 2001). It should not be difficult to obtain 911 tapes for court cases and the study on digital photos of the IPA victims’ injuries found that this low-

cost, high-quality evidence collection technology increased the likelihood of IP abusers in a no-drop jurisdiction to plead guilty, be convicted, and receive more severe sentences (C. A. Garcia, 2003, p. 579). A study of IPA case outcomes found that compared to men defendants, women defendants “were more likely to be released ROR [on their own recognizance], were less likely to be prosecuted, were less likely to plead or be found guilty, and when found guilty, were less likely to be incarcerated” (Henning & Feder, 2005, p. 631). Furthermore, prosecutors were more likely to drop cases when the defendants were White, older, and wealthier. Another study found that about a quarter of IPA cases resulted in convictions, and the cases were just as likely to result in conviction regardless of the defendants’ gender (Ventura & Davis, 2005). One third of all cases that reached court (regardless of disposition) resulted in revictimization in the 12 months following the verdict (or dismissal). It is troubling that this study found that the defendants in the dismissed cases were significantly more likely than defendants in convicted cases to have histories of violent felonies. The authors speculate that the most violent IP abusers are those whose victims are the most fearful to appear in court, and thus, the cases are dismissed. Notably, when abusers were convicted, they were less likely to recidivate in the following 12 months. However, better predictors of the defendants’ likelihood of recidivating (than the case disposition) were the IPA history, the age, and the gender of the defendants: Defendants who were younger, had longer IPA histories, and who were men, were more likely to recidivate. Of the convicted defendants, those with the lightest sentences (fines or suspended sentences) were the most likely to recidivate, suggesting light sentences could be interpreted by an abuser as receiving a free pass to do as he pleases (Ventura & Davis, 2005, p. 273). One study found that IPA probationers court-ordered to intervention/treatment were 5 times more likely to revictimize their same victims than those IPA probationers not ordered to intervention/treatment (Olson & Stalans, 2001). The authors speculate that this could be a result of the most serious offenders being the ones ordered to intervention, but it could also be that by exposing IP abusers to other IP abusers, group counseling teaches these abusers new techniques of both abusing and justifying their abuse (Olson & Stalans, 2001, p. 1181). Another spin on probation as a sentence for IPA offenders notes that while far below some victims’

expectations of appropriate state sanctioning, probation can still serve to aid some IPA survivors (Ames & Dunham, 2002). For example, although a probation sentence is unlikely to reform abusers and stop the abuse, it does play the significant role of some degree of monitoring of these abusers we know are at an elevated risk of reoffending. Like the implementation of pro-arrest policies in policing, some domestic violence courts began implementing no-drop policies in the 1980s and 1990s. These policies mandated prosecutors to pursue domestic violence charges, even when the victims wanted the charges dropped and/or refused to testify. Again, similar to the proarrest policies, the no-drop policies have the potential to frustrate women who do not want their abusers convicted. At the same time, what message does it give to have known sexist violence in the home recognized but dismissed (Robbins, 1999)? Despite feminist advocacy to require more consistent arrests, prosecutions, and harsher convictions of IPA defendants, the reality is that sanctions, even in the no-drop era, are typically quite light (Ames & Dunham, 2002). However, the no-drop policy has also been described as the single most effective method for getting domestic violence charges to stick (Robbins, 1999, p. 217). In San Diego, IP homicides decreased from 30 in 1985 to 7 in 1994 following the implementation of a nodrop policy (Robbins, 1999). Feminist scholars and victim advocates are increasing finding the proarrest and no-drop policies coercive, backfiring on victims, and causing some women’s disempowerment and feelings of entrapment, with an overreliance on the state, and disproportionately negatively affecting those most marginalized by race/ethnicity and class (Dasgupta, 2004; Durfee & Goodmark, 2019; Ford, 2003; Goodmark, 2018; Mills, 1999, 2003; Richie, 2012). A legal scholar’s analysis of evidentiary rules in IPA cases found the pro-arrest and no-drop court policies indicates how they have resulted in “unmoored” evidentiary manipulation to secure domestic violence convictions that are not allowed for other offenses, undermining the integrity of the CLS (E. R. Collins, 2015, p. 397) One IPA study found that variations of three CLS responses—an arrest, a civil protection order, or both an arrest and civil protection order—“had a substantive influence on the odds of reoffending” (Broidy et al., 2016). The authors noted that there were higher odds for Latinx offenders to have subsequent IPA police contacts but that this was likely due to “processes related to disadvantage and to policing” of people of Color and immigrants

(Broidy et al., 2016, p. 1125). I am not advocating for doing away with arrests or protection orders; I am arguing we need to find more extensive and community-related responses.

Nonprofit Agencies and Laws Designed to Assist IPA and Stalking Survivors Ironically, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) have made advocating for immigrant IPA survivors more challenging. In her book Violence Against Latina Immigrants, Villalón (2010) carefully documents how even the nonprofit agency designed to assist Latinx IPA victims followed VTVPA and VAWA guidelines, which further marginalized these survivors, particularly if they were poor, undocumented, LGBTQI+, and/or unmarried. She also found that this nonprofit supposedly aiding them in finding safety and documented status (not everyone wanted citizenship, but they all wanted to be documented as legal to be in the United States) was consumed with the survivors’ “cooperation” (as discussed in both this and the previous chapter with regard to GBA and the CLS). Survivors who did not “cooperate” were often shamed and punished by the staff, further marginalizing them (Villalón, 2010). Similar to the section on rape crisis centers at the end of the previous chapter, my attempt is not to argue against safehouses, agencies, or nonprofits for IPA survivors but rather to stress that they need to be feminist, intersectional, and successfully resistant to state co-optation.

SUMMARY Intimate partner abuse (IPA) and stalking have a significant overlap among offenders and survivors, and IPA as a whole, is likely the most prominent serious crime, with most cases going unreported. This chapter focusing on gender-based abuse (GBA) provided definitions, tactics, rates, and historical overviews of IPA and stalking. There is a significant overlap of these two crimes, with (ex)partners being the primary stalkers and most stalkers being (ex)partners. The varied IPA and stalking tactics cover a wide range of undermining, scaring/terrifying, and abusing victims. Stalking has been enhanced by technology, with cyberstalking making stalking easier and more prevalent. Laws and policies to criminalize IPA, while making

significant strides since the 1970s, have too often resulted in criminalizing the IPA survivors and have contributed to mass incarceration, particularly for Brown and Black IPA survivors, who “continue to be punished for force used in self-defense” (Larance et al., 2019, p. 73). Although feminist scholars and activists have been key to recognizing these crimes as serious and promoting and effectively implementing more serious criminal legal system (CLS) responses to them, there is a growing body of feminist criminologists who are concerned that a broken, sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, anti-immigrant CLS is unlikely to result in just decisions and unlikely to assist GBA abusers in stopping their abuse.

PART IV WOMEN WORKING IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM Chapter 11 Women Working in Prisons and Jails Chapter 12 Women Working in Policing and Law Enforcement Chapter 13 Women Working in the Courts

11 WOMEN WORKING IN PRISONS AND JAILS Despite women gaining access to custody and security positions nearly 40 years ago, corrections remains a highly patriarchal institution, as evidenced by its masculine culture and structure. —Batton and Wright (2019, p. 294)

Part IV of this book examines women working in the criminal legal system (CLS). Restriction of women’s employment is usually most extreme in women’s entrance into what have traditionally been considered “men’s” jobs, and there are few jobs more associated with masculinity than jobs poised to control offenders, particularly male offenders. Positions as prison guards, police officers/sheriffs, lawyers, judges, and even jury members, have historically, and sometimes currently, been considered primarily “men’s” jobs. Throughout the next three chapters, it is worth taking time to stop and think, “What difference could it have made to exclude women from these decision-making jobs in our justice system?” “How did restricting these jobs not only affect women who wanted to work them, but how did male-only decision-makers at the court, arrest, and prison levels also affect the handing down of justice?” “How does current male dominance in these professions affect justice?” This chapter begins with an overview of societal and legal expectations concerning women’s access to and need for paid work in the labor force. Although the steps involved do not apply just to women working in the CLS, it is useful to have an understanding of the reluctance to admit women as equals into the paid labor force both societally and legally, and how this has had unique and more far reaching negative effects on women who are in most financial need of these jobs (less wealthy/poorer women) and/or of Color (due to the additional racist discrimination). Thus, the roles of classism and/or racism combined with sexism have had a profound impact on discriminating against women aspiring to work in the CLS. “The

reality of policing in the twenty-first century is that most officers identify as white, heterosexual and cisgender (or identifying with the sex assigned to them at birth) and outnumber officers from diverse groups” (Miles-Johnson, 2019). Far too little CLS worker research exists on the intersections between gender and race/ethnicity, and even less on intersections with sexual identity. This is most sparse in the research on prison/jail workers. This chapter sets the stage for examining women working in prisons/jails, law enforcement/policing, and the courts. After the initial introduction to women’s labor in general, and in maledominated jobs specifically, the focus will be on women working in prisons and jails. In Chapter 7 I avoided the word corrections to discuss the jail and prison system, given that there is little evidence that the system emphasizes treatment to correct behavior and rehabilitate prisoners. This is consistent with Zimmer’s classic book, Women Guarding Men, published in 1986, an extensive ethnography of women working in men’s prisons in New York and Rhode Island and the first study of women guards in men’s prisons. Similarly, consistent with Zimmer (1986), the term correctional officer is not used in this book to describe persons working with incarcerated adults and children. Given that U.S. prisons and jails very rarely train their employees in rehabilitation, nor do they hire significant numbers of employees with rehabilitative expertise, it is inappropriate to call such workers “correctional officers.” Therefore, the terms prison and jail workers, prison officers, and guards are used in place of the term correctional officers in this book. The enactment of Title VII in 1972 (discussed at length later in this chapter) resulted in “a dramatic increase in the number of female correctional officers hired to work in US jails” (Dobrin, Smith, Peck, & Mascara, 2016, p. 523). Notably, women’s representation as jail guards is higher than their representation as prison guards (Dobrin et al., 2016). Significantly, African American women’s experiences working in prisons have mirrored the racism and sexism outside the prisons. Before the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), “racial segregation existed as institutional policy and practice, de jure in the South and de facto in the North” (Feinman, 1986, p. 141). Most superintendents and officers in the prisons were white, and when African Americans were hired, it was usually to guard African American prisoners, who were typically segregated and housed in the worst parts of prisons. After the 1950s, African American women’s (and men’s) employment in penal institutions

significantly increased. As more non-prison jobs opened for white women in the 1970s and 1980s, more African American women moved into the vacuum created by their absence in prison employment (Feinman, 1986). As expected, women tend to constitute the highest representation (percentage) of staff in women’s prisons (about half in one study of a western state) and the lowest representation in men’s maximumsecurity prisons (about 10% in the same state) (Hemmens et al., 2002). Since the mid-1990s women’s representation as prison staff has increased from about 1 in 10 to over 1 in 4 in this millennium (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, p. 87; U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1993, 2000, 2005, 2013). The representation of women guards in jails is likely even higher given that the most recent data on jails, 2003, reports that women constituted 34.0% of guards in government-run jails and 40.8% of guards in privately operated jails (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005, Tables 1.100 and Tables 1.105, respectively). Drawing on 2006–2010 national U.S. data, Table 11.1 indicates that women were 27.5% of the prison and jail workers. Almost half of the women workers are White, while 68% of the men workers are White, and African Americans are far more represented among the women (38%) than the men (17%), and Whites are more represented among the men (68%) than the women (48%). Table 11.1 ● U.S. Prison and Jail Workers by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity 2006–2010

Women % Total by Gender By Ethnicity and Race

Men (n)

%

(n)

27.5% (115,925) 72.3% (302,275)

Women %

Men (n)

%

(n)

White

48.5% (55,935)

67.8% (204,270)

Latino/a

10.3% (11,900)

11.8% (35,670)

Black/African American

38.3% (44,225)

17.4% (52,300)

American Indian

1.1%

(1,260)

0.8%

(2,285)

Asian American

0.7%

(820)

1.0%

(3,140)

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0.1%

(115)

0.3%

(765)

Biracial

1.0%

(1,125)

0.9%

(2,780)

Source: Data from Detailed Census Occupation by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for Worksite Geography, Total Population Universe: Civilians employed at work 16 years and over and U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010, http://www.census.gov/people/eeotabulation/. Data are for occupations as bailiffs, correctional officers, and jailers. The author thanks Peggy Jobe for assistance in locating these data June 6, 2013. Note: Unfortunately, there were no more currently available data on this at the writing of this fifth edition of this book.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE PAID LABOR FORCE Atkins and Hoggett (1984) discuss three ways the U.S. legal system has attempted to justify limiting women’s paying job opportunities: (1) women’s “natural” inferiority; (2) maternity (women should be mothers and be the caretakers of children); and (3) marriage (all women [should] marry [men] and the man’s job should be earning money while women take care of the home). Until the mid-1970s, pregnant women workers were routinely “dismissed” (fired) and frequently were denied requests for reinstatement after giving birth. Additionally, most state unemployment and insurance programs excluded pregnant women (Rhode, 1989). U.S. historians argue that in the 19th century, U.S. marriage and wage labor were connected in a manner that undermined freedom, whereby women, in theory, entered into marriage voluntarily and men’s wages allowed them to support a dependent wife. The result was engendering paid work, home and child care, and power and dependency (Batlan, 2005; Stanley, 1998). At the beginning of the 19th century in England, single women had more legal rights than married women did, especially regarding property ownership (Fergus, 1988). Similarly, in the United States, regardless of marital status, all women were barred from many professions and trades. However, married women fared much worse than unmarried women because they were viewed as their husbands’ property (Kirp et al., 1986, p. 31). In fact, most 19th- and early 20th-century women had to choose between marriage and employment in the paid labor force, which is probably key as to why as late as 1920, four in five women in the paid work force were unmarried (Rhode, 1989, p. 13). Gender discrimination in the workplace is typically viewed through two lenses: (1) institutionalized workplace policies and practices and (2) cultural beliefs about women and men (Bobbitt-Zeher, 2011, p. 765). It is generally accepted by the public and scholars that gender inequality in the economy, family, and politics has decreased in the United States since the 1960s (Gauchat et al., 2012). In the 1970s, because of the second wave of the women’s movement, the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled “sex” (gender) discrimination as illegal. It has been stated that the legal status of U.S. women changed more during the 1970s

and 1980s than in the two centuries preceding the 1970s (Hoff, 1991, p. 229). Perry-Jenkins and Gerstel (2020) distinguish between paid work, “mostly outside the home but sometimes inside,” and unpaid work, “including housework, parenting as work, and kin work” (p. 420). There is a history of viewing women pursuing paid work (especially outside of the home)—whether they must to financially support themselves/their families and/or they want to have careers—as dismantling a healthy society. And although there is no connection between mothers working outside of the home and their children’s risk for delinquency (Vander Ven, 2003), some still claim such a link. It is unfair to suggest that careers are only, or are more important, for men and that men cannot or should not be responsible for taking care of children and homes. Given the high rates of woman, singlehead-of-household families, this argument is outdated as well as unfair. Women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings was 62% in 1979, 64%–70% in the 1980s, 72%–77% in the 1990s, and since 2004 has been 80%–83% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). Gender comparisons in wages are complicated. In addition to disparities in paying women less than similarly employed, educated, and experienced men, is the problem of job placements. Genderbased occupational segregation is “the degree to which male and female workers are concentrated in different jobs” (Gauchat et al., 2012, p. 721). One study found that women’s wages were significantly lower than comparable men’s in the occupations of lawyers, professors, physicians, and social workers (Gibelman, 2003). Notably, when occupations are race segregated in terms of African American vis-à-vis White, both men’s and women’s earnings are harmed, but when occupations are race segregated in terms of Latinx vis-à-vis White, men’s earnings are harmed with little impact on women’s earnings (Gauchat et al., 2012, p. 739). Bobbitt-Zeher’s (2011) analysis of Ohio Civil Rights Commission sex discrimination in employment cases filed by women found most of the women (59%) experienced more than one type of discrimination (p. 765), and a prevalent theme was the women being viewed as women first and as workers second (p. 771). By far the most common type of discrimination was being fired (62%), with work environment, working conditions, and sexual harassment all reported by over a quarter of the women. Viewing women as weak was most “common in employers’ interpretation of pregnant women as potential risks,”

and this discrimination was twice as common among women of Color compared to white women (p. 774). Bobbitt-Zeher also found patterns whereby some employers applied policies only to women workers, held women to higher standards than their male coworkers, and used different criteria for hiring men than women; in addition, sex discrimination was more common in male-dominated than female-dominated work settings.

COMPARING RACIAL AND GENDER WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION Comparisons and analogies are frequently made between political activism to promote racial/ethnic equality and political activism to promote gender equality. Some people resist comparing gender to racial oppression, believing that because women do not constitute a minority in the population, they should not require special legislative appeals used by people of Color. Nonetheless, relative to men as a group, women as a group have been disadvantaged via limited access to rewards and opportunities in a system where men have been viewed as “normal” and women as “different,” and thus, “deviant” (Laws, 1975, p. 53). At the same time, it is important to document the varying ways the intersection of race and gender oppression are perpetrated and experienced. This and the following two chapters highlight the additional discrimination and the unique contributions that women of Color (relative to white women) have made in breaking into occupations of prison/jail, law enforcement, and court work, and also discuss some of the limited research on LGTBQI+ individuals working in the CLS. Despite some problems with this practice, the terms sex and gender will be used interchangeably in this section of the book on workers, because most of the laws have been about “sex” discrimination. A major distinction between racism and sexism is that people of Color do not tend to share the private sphere as intimately with the empowered (i.e., white men). Due to the correlations between race and class and the likelihood of intraracial relationships, white women disproportionately benefit from the financial and networking advantages accrued to their White fathers and other relatives, husbands, and friends. Furthermore, racial and sex discrimination have been distinguished by motivation: Racial discrimination is more often motivated by the intent to degrade and disempower, whereas

discrimination against women is more often motivated by paternalism and protection (Gregory, 1987; Kirp et al., 1986; Rhode, 1987). Although the paternalism and protectionism supposedly guiding laws that restrict (White) women are viewed more positively than the degrading laws restricting African Americans and other people of Color, both paternalistic and degrading laws have extremely negative consequences. In some ways, the paternalistically motivated laws may be more difficult to fight because there is some element claiming they are helpful. Unfortunately, these laws usually serve to restrict women’s rights (to employment, jury duty, etc.) and help to perpetuate stereotypes of women as weaker than or simply less than men. Women and girls’ “deviant” status has been at play when they try to obtain such basic rights ranging from educational and job opportunities to opportunities to play on athletic teams (Love & Kelly, 2011). Legislation and court decisions overturning sex discrimination acknowledge that society is not gender neutral, that boys and girls are raised with different attitudes about and access to rights and opportunities, and distinct gender differences in life experiences. One of the first successful gender discrimination cases in the United States, Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), and the first one argued before the U.S. Supreme Court by current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, overturned regulations that denied women Air Force military officers the same dependents’ rights (for husbands) as men officers (had for wives) (Hoff, 1991; Lucie, 1988).

THE MATRON ROLE: WOMEN’S BREAKING INTO CLS JOBS THROUGH SEXIST STEREOTYPICAL POSITIONS When women finally broke into criminal legal system (CLS) jobs previously restricted to men, it was in sexist “mothering” roles with the title “matrons.” The term matron, lacking in a professional image, is certainly nonthreatening and consistent with the nurturing and caretaking responsibilities these women were expected to perform. Indeed, some of the women reformers agitating for these jobs argued “that women’s inherently compassionate nature would make them better than men at performing some police duties, such as preventing crime, handling female and juvenile cases, and protecting

the moral and physical safety of women and girls in public” (Appier, 1998, p. 3). The first prison and police matrons were often the white female social reformers who had argued for women in these jobs; and they were typically prominent, upper-middle-class, wellconnected, socially prominent, nonimmigrants, and their work in the system tended to be volunteer (Appier, 1998; Feinman, 1986; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Allison Morris, 1987; Schulz, 1995). The label “matron” instead of guard or officer “remained virtually unchanged until the 1960s, when women began to push for enlarged opportunities” (Pollock, 1995, pp. 97–98). More recent research identified the key roles sheriffs’ wives’ held in running “Mom and Pop Jails,” which were primary rural jails, from 1900 to 1970 (Ruddell & Leyton-Brown, 2013). These were mostly unpaid positions without official law enforcement status, yet these women “admitted and supervised arrestees, thwarted jail escapes, apprehended escapees[,] … challenged lynch mobs … [and] managed to day-today operations and cared for the inmates” (Ruddell & Leyton-Brown, 2013, p. 267). There is a strong link between women’s advancement into prison/jail employment and into policing jobs. Women prison reformers, “paved the way” for women to work in policing and advanced women’s roles from volunteer to paid/professional services (Schulz, 1989). The first woman hired as a jail matron was in 1822, and in 1832, the first women were hired as prison guards (Pollock, 1995; Pollock-Byrne, 1986; Zupan, 1992). These women “were admitted as women and not as professionals” (Allison Morris, 1987, p. 139). Importantly, the separate institutions designed for women prisoners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries not only provided women prisoners with more attention but also provided women with more opportunities to work with offenders (Zupan, 1992). Notably, a far more recent study of prison/jail workers’ reasons for pursuing this work found the only gender differences were women were more likely to emphasize both keeping the community safe and enforcing society’s laws (Schlosser et al., 2010). There were no gender differences regarding advancement opportunities, job security, pay, and numerous other variables.

WOMEN AS TOKEN WORKERS

When examining the entry of women as tokens working in the CLS, it is useful to briefly address the research on tokenism in the workforce. Hughes (1945, p. 358) claims that exceptions to jobs previously employing only white men (or only men or only Whites) do so through “some elaboration of social segregation” (p. 358). Kanter (1977b, p. 969) argues that individuals’ token status is heightened when their social category (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) is (1) obvious, and (2) new to the setting. These statements are certainly true of the women breaking into CLS jobs. Markedly, research shows that the history of women breaking into “men’s jobs” is in dire contrast to men breaking into “women’s jobs.” Yoder (1991) pondered that this might be because hiring more men may improve the status of “women’s jobs,” whereas hiring more women could result in lowered status for “men’s jobs.” However, evidence suggests that men have more rigorously excluded and been hostile to token women in “their domain” (traditionally male jobs), while women tend to be more accepting and even welcoming to token men in traditionally “women’s jobs” (Epstein, 1988). More recent research on the “gender composition” (i.e., solely men vs. men and women) of 202 management consultants questions the assumption that mixed-gender (also called cross-gender) interactions are more interpersonally sensitive “than all-male interactions primarily because women demonstrate more interpersonal sensitivity than do men. Rather, we argue that the social category ‘women’ can evoke more sensitive behavior from others such that men as well as women contribute to an increase in sensitivity in mixed-gender interactions” (M. Williams & Polman, 2015, p. 334). Moreover, simply the presence of one or more women on a work “team” may generate “increased sensitivity such that men can also be the recipients of more sensitivity” (M. Williams & Polman, 2015, p. 334). Tellingly, this study found that the sensitivity effect on men was even higher when the women coworkers “had low reward power—i.e., females who better fit the expectations associated with the social category of ‘women’” (M. Williams & Polman, 2015, p. 334). Isolating, ignoring, and excluding the first women working with male inmates from “the informal organizational network of male deputies” also denied these women “occupational socialization opportunities and a sense of belonging associated with collegial relations” (Pogrebin & Poole, 1997, p. 57). Zimmer (1988) found that the first (token) women hired as guards in men’s prisons faced substantial opposition from the men who worked with them as peers,

supervisors, and administrators. At the same time, token men hired in women’s prisons reported no opposition from women staff or supervisors, and some women staff demonstrated appreciation for their addition (Zimmer, 1988). Ott’s (1989) study comparing token men nurses and token women police officers found that women police officers faced more gender stereotyping, were less accepted, experienced more sexual harassment, and felt more visible than the men nurses. The glass-ceiling effect, a promotion block experienced by many women and people of Color in jobs traditionally unavailable to them, is an example of tokenism. Put another way, women, people of Color, LGBTQI+, and others may get a foot in the door, but promotions to sergeants, captains, chiefs, wardens (especially in men’s prisons), judges, and partners in law firms have been more difficult. On the other hand, a 1992 study of men in the predominately female professions of nursing, elementary education teaching, librarianship, and social work found that, unlike token women, most of the prejudice the token men faced was from people outside of their professions. Furthermore, instead of the “glass ceiling” that women tokens usually experience, this study found that token men in women-dominated jobs experienced a glass escalator: Token men were given fair and often preferential treatment that enhanced their positions relative to their women coworkers (C. L. Williams, 1992). In the late 1970s, Kanter’s (1977b) research on women tokens in business corporations found that the men tended to place women coworkers in gendered roles that were familiar to them because “woman coworker” was not a familiar role. The types of familiar gendered women’s roles included “mother,” “pet,” “seductress,” and “iron maiden.” The “mother” is expected to attend to everyone’s emotional needs in the office, and the “seductress” attends to some men’s sexual stereotypes about women. The “pets” were the resident “cheerleaders,” whose priority seemed to be to support men coworkers and build up their egos. The “iron maidens,” on the other hand, were women who did not fit into any of the other categories, possibly resisting them by choice. In sum, Kanter (1977a, 1977b) found these women tokens in business corporations as falling or being “forced” into these sexist categories by society and their male coworkers and supervisors. This is relevant for research on women working in the CLS as reported in this and the next two chapters.

It is also important to recognize the additional token status burden and impact for those “new” workers who hold more than one token identity. More specifically, for women of Color, women from a country other than the one they are working in, women with disabilities, LGBTQI+ individuals, and so on, are often fighting oppression on more than one front or, stated another way, intersections of discrimination. S. E. Martin and Jurik (1996) discuss how women breaking into CLS jobs encounter gender as “an ongoing social production,” where race and class interact with gender subordination, which also interact with “domination in other social institutions and sites (e.g., the state, family)” (p. 26). Significantly, even when women worked in the “custodial institutions” for women prisoners (described in Chapter 7), they “tended to be subordinate to the male wardens at nearby men’s prisons and were typically paid lower wages than their male counterparts” (Maschke, 1996, p. 34). Regardless of gender, working in men’s prisons provides important opportunities for employees aspiring to a career in “corrections” for four reasons: (1) There are better posts and shifts, (2) there are more promotional opportunities, (3) there are more locations to work in prisons, and (4) working in a men’s prison appears to be necessary for advancement into administration (Zimmer, 1986). The first three reasons are largely because there are many more (men prisoners and thus) men’s prisons than women’s prisons, and the men’s prisons are more highly populated, allowing for more positions in each rank, shift, and post. Thus, the fact that women are rarely hired to work in men’s prisons is institutionalized sexism.

WOMEN TRAILBLAZERS It is important to document the profound impact of some of the earliest women working in prisons, jails, and juvenile institutions. For example, criminologist and penologist Katharine Bement Davis (1860–1935) is truly remarkable in her attempts in the 1800s (and early 1900s) to provide better understanding about gender, race, and sexuality, particularly women’s sexuality, including “homosexuality” (Deegan, 2003). Davis worked as a superintendent of New York State Reform for Women at Bedford Hills (1901–1914), was the first woman commissioner of New York City Corrections (1914–1916) and was chair of the first NYC parole panel (1916–1917).

Kate Barnard, born in the late 1870s or early 1880s, worked as a stenographer in the Oklahoma legislature in 1903 where she met many politicians and became known for her spirited speaking and her effectiveness in organizing women and men to support society’s “unfortunates” (K. L. Bryant, 1969). Barnard successfully organized around women’s labor unions and the prohibition of child labor and child abuse. Although women did not have voting rights in 1907, Barnard was elected the first commissioner of Oklahoma Charities and Corrections for all of Kansas and Oklahoma (Holley & Brewster, 1997). In addition to enormous success in an all-male sexist political world with her advocacy against child labor and child abuse and organizing women’s labor unions, Barnard was highly successful in improving the treatment of incarcerated women and men (K. L. Bryant, 1969; Holley & Brewster, 1997). Mary Belle Harris (1874–1957), musically talented and with a Ph.D. in Sanskrit and Indo-European Linguistics from the University of Chicago, was the first superintendent of the Federal Institution for Women in Alderson, Virginia (J. W. Rogers, 2000). She entered a career in prison work after a chance meeting where then–NYC Commissioner of Corrections Katharine Bement Davis “found” her on the dock to the Blackwell Island Workhouse in 1914: On July 1, 1914, the pair boarded a ferry for Blackwell’s Island, a short trip which became the first leg of an extended journey in corrections for Mary Belle Harris, then age 39. That journey would embrace a career, incorporating such positions as these: Superintendent, State Reformatory for Women at Clinton, New Jersey; Assistant Director of the Section on Reformatories and Detention Homes for the U.S. War Department; Superintendent, Federal Institution for Women at Alderson, West Virginia; and Member of the Pennsylvania Board of Parole. (J. W. Rogers, 2000, p. 8) Miriam Van Waters (1887–1974) received a doctorate in anthropology, was one of the first people to push for recognizing “juvenile delinquency,” started and ran an institution for delinquent girls, and published about youths and justice (Freedman, 1996). From 1932 to 1957, with a brief exception, Waters was the superintendent of the Massachusetts Reformatory for Women; she retired at the age of 70. The brief exception was due to when she

g p was fired, allegedly for mismanaging the reformatory. Freedman (1996) documents how the firing was due to concerns about Waters’s “deviant sexuality,” that she was lesbian and supposedly allowing a lesbian “racket” in the institution. Waters successfully fought the firing, which was extremely courageous given her huge concerns (particularly dangerous at that time) about her lesbian identity being publicized, but recognizing the inherent unfairness for her and the women she was charged to oversee (Freedman, 1996). Waters served as a mentor to Edna Mahan (1900–1968), the superintendent of the New Jersey Reformatory for women from 1928 to 1968. Both Waters and Mahan worked tirelessly to advocate for rehabilitation for delinquent girls and incarcerated women, to treat female offenders with dignity, and to provide adequate care for new mothers and their babies and to find good homes for the babies (Freedman, 1996; Hawkes, 1998). Margaret Moore, born in 1948 in Mississippi, is the first woman to be (1) superintendent of a male prison in Pennsylvania, (2) deputy commissioner (overseeing seven prisons and about 10,000 prisoners) in Pennsylvania, and (3) director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (Yates, 2002). Thus far, these women “trailblazers’” race was White, or more often not identified and assumed White. That is, White privilege resulted in the first “trailblazers” largely being White. In addition to sexism, as an African American and a 16-year-old single mother, Margaret Moore faced significant oppression. Through now-noted author Barbara Neely, Moore was introduced to working with offenders, for which she developed a huge passion and commitment (Yates, 2002). She also served as the director of a women’s center in Pittsburgh and began honing her “consciousness for racism and sexism in corrections” (Yates, 2002, p. 14). Moore has been highly successful in paving the way for many women and people of Color to work with offenders. Predictably, not all the “pioneering” women in the CLS were concerned with advancing gender equality. L. M. Dodge’s (2002) book on the history of women’s prisons in Illinois describes how in the 1960s some women workers at the Dwight Reformatory were disheartened with the conditions for some of the women (including chamber pots for “toilets” as recently as 1967) and with the replacement of the therapeutic ideal of programming with harsh discipline for “vulgarity and unladylike behavior” (pp. 242–243). Unlike the early progressive and compassionate women superintendents just discussed, Dodge describes Margaret D.

Morrisey, superintendent of Dwight from 1962 to 1972, as an overly strict, rigid, and unreasonable force, whose priorities were security and custodial, not treatment. Dodge states this “lack of commitment to treatment goals” was consistent in women’s prisons across the United States in the 1960s (p. 245). Morrissey was obsessed with monitoring the prisoners’ friendships for the possibility of “homosexuality.” Dodge concludes that in the 1990s most women prisoners in the United States “were primarily guarded by male staff” (p. 256). An example of the current sexism and homophobia in the area of women guards is Charmaine McGuffey, the highest-ranking woman in the history of the Hamilton County Sheriffs’ Department (HSCD), McGuffey started as a guard in HCSD in 1983 at the age of 26, where she regularly earned promotions—to sergeant in 1985, captain in 2013, and, as an open lesbian, major of Court and Jail Services in 2013. McGuffey was the first and, so far, the only woman to be appointed a major in HSCD, after the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) deemed the Hamilton County Jail the worst jail in the state, failing 68 of 82 minimum standards. Under McGuffey’s management, in 3 years the ORDC deemed it the best large jail in Ohio, and Major McGuffey received numerous awards, including Law Enforcement Officer of the Year and 2016 Public Citizen of the Year (by the Ohio National Association of Social Workers), and her Women’s Recovery Pod was viewed as exceptional by the Ohio governor, who sent representatives to review it. Her current lawsuit against HSCD claims discrimination based on her gender and sexual orientation. Major McGuffey complained to Sherriff Jim Neil that she was being treated disrespectfully and being undermined, but she was also raising multiple concerns of officers’ excessive use of force against inmates. McGuffey was fired as major in 2017 after her efforts to fire a jail employee for physically assaulting an inmate resulting in scalp lacerations and a broken leg. In April 2020, McGuffey won the Democratic primary against the incumbent, Sheriff Jim Neil, the man who fired her, for his job. (Her Republican opponent for the election in fall 2020 is Cincinnati Police Department Lt. Bruce Hoffbauer.) Finally, it is inspiring and significant to trace the “herstories” of some of the important women scholars who helped shape the current understanding of women and girl offenders, the links between victimization and offending, and female victimization. Louise Stevens Bryant, Ph.D. (1885–1956) was in charge of the Department of

Research and Statistics of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, and conducted some of the finest research on incarcerated women to date, although she is rarely recognized for this (Belknap, 2010a; L. S. Bryant, 1918). Bryant published an empirical research article in 1918 that not only used multimethods, but she asked the women about injustices in their cases, and after learning about them, she went and tried to have some of the CLS decisions changed (Belknap, 2010a; L. S. Bryant, 1918). Drs. Coramae Richey Mann (1931–2004) and Vernetta Young effectively “jump-started” the conversations on the intersections of gender, race, and class with crime, emphasizing the need for understanding what we now refer to as the intersectionalities of gender, race, and class (Adams-Fuller, 2003; Greene & Gabbidon, 2000; Mars, 2002). Both women are African American. Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind began documenting the forced vaginal exams of girls charged with offenses when collecting data for her master’s degree in the early 1970s and has been highly influential in shaping feminist criminology (see Belknap, 2004). In more recent careers, Drs. Beth E. Richie (African American), Juanita Díaz-Cotto (Latina), and Luana Ross (Native American) have been hugely instrumental in identifying the strong intersections of sexism, racism, classism, and heterosexism/homophobia in the CLS’s labeling of girls and women as “offenders” and sometimes turning their victimizations into offenses.

THE SIGNIFICANT ROLE OF LEGISLATIVE AND COURT RULINGS ON WOMEN’S WORK IN THE CLS The movement of women into the areas of prison/jail work, law enforcement, and the courts, has been heavily influenced by lawsuits initiated by women. Unfortunately, although legal changes are usually necessary, they are not always enough to bring about actual change. Many citizens are unaware of their own legal rights, and some institutions that discriminate may be unaware they are breaking the law (or even discriminating). However, even when some employers are aware of the laws they are breaking, they use various forms of direct or indirect coercion to override the law. For instance, even though a prison, jail, or police department may have a policy against sexual harassment, a woman employee may decide it is less costly emotionally and financially to “put up” with it or to change jobs

than to take on the male-dominated system. Women workers who know they are being discriminated against by sexual harassment or other means (e.g., pay, hours, placement, promotions) may realistically decide that to keep the job they have, or even to maintain a good record for a future job, they cannot “rock the boat.” Or, as one study found of the first women guards in the Denver jails, the women often “endure the harassment as part of the conditions of employment” (Pogrebin & Poole, 1997, p. 51). This is particularly crucial when the victims of discrimination or harassment have no other means of supporting themselves (and perhaps their dependents) during the time-consuming and costly experience of a trial. Notably, Griffin’s (2007) more recent study found that almost two thirds of women working as guards were the primary or sole “breadwinner” for their family, and although nine tenths of the men were the “breadwinners,” whether a guard was the “breadwinner” had a significant impact on the women’s but not men’s likelihood of staying in the job. Even controlling for “breadwinner” status, women (but not men) who were married were more likely to report likelihood to stay in their jobs. Race was unrelated to the decision to stay. Cheeseman (2012) tracks changes starting in the late 1960s leading to women’s hiring into men’s prisons: (1) 1969 recommendations by the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training to integrate women into guard positions, (2) Title VII in 1972, and (3) guidelines established by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals to recruit and hire women in all areas of prison/jail work in 1973. These were followed by lawsuits in 1977 and 1979 by women guards. This section will cover the power, struggles, and changes brought by Title VII and the legal cases brought by Dianne Rawlinson, Cynthia Gunther, and Charmaine McGuffey. Title VII, a 1972 amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, states that it is illegal to base any terms of employment (conditions, compensation, firing, hiring, and so on) on a person’s sex, race, religion, or national origin. A long-standing resistance to addressing sex discrimination in Title VII is due to concerns that there would be negative impacts on gender roles in the family (Franklin, 2012). Some report that “sex” was added to the list of nondiscriminatory characteristics listed in the amendment (after race, religion, and natural origin) by some Republicans and southern Democrats at the last minute before its passage, as an attempt to derail the entire amendment as a “joke” (e.g., Deitch, 1993). More recent research

documents “this extension was not a joke or an accident, but a product of normal politics”; these Republicans and southern Democrats were indeed more supportive of including “sex” than other Democrats. (Krimmel, 2019, p. 293). However, the myth that “sex” was a fluke not really meant to be included in Title VII, resulted in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) “refusal to take sex discrimination charges seriously” (Krimmel, 2019, p. 273).1 Despite its twisted history (Monahan, 2013), Title VII is viewed by many scholars as the greatest motivation for hiring women into non-gendered jobs in men’s prisons (Flynn, 1982; Jurik, 1985; Morton, 1981; Zimmer, 1989). Rabe-Hemp and Miller (2018) so succinctly and powerfully state, “Before the 1970s, almost all criminal justice employees in the world were men” (p. 231). 1 Previous editions of this book reported this myth as accurate. Also, the EEOC’s reluctance to address sex discrimination cases inspired feminist activists to establish the National Organization for Women (NOW) (Krimmel, 2019, p. 273). Title VII allows the EEOC, a federal agency established in 1964, “the power to prosecute Title VII violators in the federal courts, a power it quickly utilized” ( Zimmer, 1986, p. 4). (Recall from Chapter 9, that now U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was chair of the EEOC and supervised now Professor Anita Hill, when he sexually harassed her at the EEOC.) In fact, most employment discrimination suits have been brought pursuant to this amendment (Berger, 1980). However, it took 10 years for Title VII to get some “teeth” and be effective (Hoff, 1991, p. 234). The EEOC was staffed and geared for race discrimination cases and completely unprepared when over a third of the complaints the first year were based on sex discrimination (Franklin, 2012). Although Title VII’s positive influence cannot be underestimated, it has five important criticisms/limitations. First, given the costs of discovery, expert witnesses, and so on, Title VII is costly to litigate and has become more costly over time (Berger, 1980; S. E. Martin, 1992). Second, the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) of Title VII, decided on a case-by-case basis, was designed for “employers to engage in sex-based discrimination in those instances in which the sex of the employee is a reasonably necessary qualification for the job” (Monahan, 2013, p. 101) (e.g., to limit men to be sperm donors, rabbis to head synagogues, etc.). BFOQs,

seemingly in contrast to the intent, have been legally used to exclude women’s employment from a variety of occupations, including prison chaplain, prison guard, and international oil executive (Epstein, 1988; Franklin, 2012; Monahan, 2013). Third, in the 1980s legal scholars noted the irony that men were more successful than women in their access to the courts and winning the sex discrimination cases (Berger, 1980; Rhode, 1987). Thus, many of the first most successful sex discrimination cases in the courts further advanced men. Fourth, Title VII has been criticized by legal scholars for its bifurcation of race and sex/gender, thus limiting the employment protection for women of Color (Blankenship, 1993; Crenshaw, 1989). The wording of Title VII separates race and sex, providing people of Color, as a group, access to challenging employment discrimination that is different from what it provides for women as a group. Thus, there has been a history of women of Color protected only insofar as their discrimination experiences coincide with those of men of Color or White women (Crenshaw, 1989). Fifth, the Title VII doctrine that has evolved over the past few decades focuses on a “traditional concept” of sex discrimination as expounded by court cases in the 1970s (Franklin, 2012). More specifically, the courts have held that plaintiffs need to demonstrate that their biological sex (not gender) triggered the alleged discrimination and that adequate comparators must be identified to prove they did not receive such (biological) sex discrimination (Franklin, 2012). But more recent decisions in the Second (Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. [2018]) and Seventh (Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana [2017]) Circuit Courts ruled that “under Title VII, employers could not discriminate against their employees because they disapproved of their employees’ intimate same-sex attractions or associations” (Hamilton, 2019, p. 2211). Notably, Zarda and Hively, along with Schroer v. Billington in 2008, provide arguments for including individuals discriminated against based on being trans to be included under “sex discrimination” (Collins, 2020; Krimmel, 2019). Notably, in June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6–3) in a landmark case that workplace discrimination against LGBT individuals (e.g., firing someone for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender) is against the law. “The Court said the language of [Title VII of] the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity” (Liptak, 2020, n.p.). Prior to this ruling, firing workers based on an LGBT identity was legal in half of U.S. states.

Franklin’s (2012) treatise of Title VII emphasizes that the court determinations have been reluctant to challenge employment practices in terms of the social (sexist) meanings and effects on gender roles at the same time that mid-1970s decisions held that “pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination” (p. 1314). Unfortunately, although legislation has helped in many ways to improve women’s opportunities, it has not provided clear guidelines allowing women equal opportunities, and some scholarship indicates that working mothers are those least protected by Title VII’s inclusion sex discrimination (J. C. Williams, 2012). Monahan (2013) states, “Courts often do not explicitly state what understanding of gender is informing their decisions … [which] actually operates to ensure the continued elusiveness of gender equality under the law” (p. 101). Nolasco and Vaughn (2011) provide the most recent and detailed assessment of court decisions in gender-based CLS employment, specifically prison/jail and policing/law enforcement jobs. Their qualitative analysis of the cases indicates that fewer of these have been in the courts over time and that more favorable decisions for women plaintiffs have occurred over time. They also note cases where men have won sex discrimination cases as plaintiffs against CLS employers. Legal scholar J. A. Clarke (2019) addresses the growing visibility of nonbinary gender identities (people who do not identify as men or women and use plural pronouns), detailing how this visibility opens “new avenues for feminist and LGBT advocacy” (p. 895). More specifically, she cites lawsuits based on transgender rights (specifying policing as an area of “binary gender regulation”), concluding that “the law can recognize nonbinary gender identities, or eliminate unnecessary legal sex classifications, using familiar civil rights concepts” (p. 895). The simplicity of this convincing argument is compelling regarding all gender rights, including women’s rights to work as equals in the CLS.

PRISONER PRIVACY AND PRISON SAFETY: LEGAL RESISTANCE TO WOMEN GUARDS C. Fisher (2019) notes that “academics have generally been less interested in corrections workers than in inmates” (p. 16). Although Nolasco and Vaughn (2011) identify many types of sex discrimination brought on behalf of prison/jail staff (e.g., pregnancy, promotion,

hiring, and job assignment discriminations), this section focuses on the two that have generated the most attention in women’s legal right to work in men’s prisons: (1) the impact of women officers on prison security, and (2) men prisoners’ rights to privacy. As this section emphasizes, these two issues are complicated and surprisingly overlapping.

Women Guards’ Assumed Threat to Prison Security/Safety Recall the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception to Title VII described in the last section, that “allows employers to engage in sex-based discrimination in those instances in which the sex of the employee is a reasonably necessary qualification for the job” (Monahan 2013, p. 102), such as allowing only men to be considered as sperm donors. Monahan (2013) points out that BFOQ exceptions have been successfully used in cases plaintiffs brought against Playboy and Hooters, with “the implicit argument that women are uniquely qualified under the law to provide sexual titillation services,” at the same time that it uses women’s potential titillation capacities against them regarding their employment as prison guards (p. 105). Dothard v. Rawlinson, decided in 1977, is a classic and the original case of CLS sex-based discrimination based on Title VII. “Dianne Rawlinson applied to work as a correctional counselor with the Alabama Board of Corrections but was rejected because she did not meet Alabama’s statutorily imposed 120-pound weight requirement” (Wu, 2012, p. 1207). Such a requirement is institutionalized sexism given that women as a group tend to be shorter and weigh less than men as a group. Although Dothard eliminated the minimum height and weight requirement, it upheld that under at least some circumstances, men’s prisons qualified for a BFOQ exception against hiring women guards, because women threatened the prison security, including by inciting rape: In Dothard the Supreme Court created a theoretical framework, a theory of gender, positing that the mere presence of the female body incites men who have been denied consensual heterosexual sex (that is, incarcerated men) to rape…. This court-created theory of gender collapses female gender into biology while reinforcing the

notion of man as at least possessing the potential of a rational mind that can govern the drives and impulses of his body. Whereas women are completely embodied and defined by the uncontrollable effect that their bodies could have on male bodies, only some men are similarly defined by biology. Paradoxically, under this theory, those men who are incarcerated or who possess a proclivity to commit sex crimes experience a lack of agency similar to women’s. They too are at the mercy of bodies that react, without control, to other bodies. By focusing on the hidden proclivity of some men to rape, the Court of Appeals casts committing sex crimes as an infirmity, a failure of male rationality. Womanhood, meanwhile, is nothing more than a catalyst for male sexual desire that some, flawed, men cannot withstand. (Monahan, 2013, p. 108) This exemption was given because of the belief that the presence of even one woman officer might threaten the security of the prison, including the increased likelihood of prisoners rioting, although there was no evidence to support this (Monahan, 2013; Zimmer, 1986). Monahan (2013) appropriately scorns the Dothard Court decision for purporting that women should be disqualified from working in men’s prisons due to such sexist and simplistic views that men raping women is “normal” because “men need heterosexual sexual contact, and when denied it consensually (here due to incarceration), they will take it by force,” and “women are rape-able” (p. 111). The dual assumptions that women incite men to rape them, and men are incited to rape women, deny both women and men guards’ agency, not to mention, deeply troubling assumptions about both men as uncontrollable rapists and women as causing their own rape victimizations. Monahan (2013) goes on to contrast the 1977 Dothard decision with the 2002 Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections. Recall in Chapter 7 prison guards and supervisors who sexually abused almost 500 women incarcerated in Michigan between 1994 and 2000 (Culley, 2012). Monahan (2013) states these sexual abuses were “well known and accepted by the MDOC [Michigan Department of Corrections] administration” and were “part of MDOC’s operating procedure” (p. 107). In some facilities, the rapes and other sexual abuses involved one or more prison guards or supervisors watching the rapes/sexual abuses (p. 107). Monahan (2013) reveals how the 2004 Eversondecision further twisted the troubling sexism and simplicity from the 1977 Dotharddecision, by

expanding the category of men-that-womanhood-incites-to-rape “from incarcerated men to potentially any man…. The court views men as potentially carrying a latent trait that prevents them from withstanding woman’s incitement to rape. This flawed man, like woman, is unable to control the reactions and actions of his body” (pp. 111–112). After significant media publicity and litigation around these staff-perpetrated sexual assaults of women prisoners, the MDOC changed its policies to limit men working in women’s prisons. Ironically, in district court where the MDOC used the BFOQ for limiting men’s positions in women’s prisons, the court sided with the men staff, claiming that these sexual abuses did not qualify hiring women over men (p. 112). In terms of the BFOQ, the Everson situation is the flip side of Dothard. In Dothard, women’s exclusion from employment was not solely based on their potential to be victims of sex crimes. Similarly, according to Everson, men are not excluded from employment simply because any one of them might commit a sex crime. There is nothing inherent in a man’s potential to engage in criminal conduct that would indicate that he cannot perform the job duties of a prison guard to the requisite standard of proficiency and safety as required to defeat a BFOQ. To reach this conclusion, the court took a further step. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in deciding Eversonin 2004, construed abstention from engaging in sexually abusive conduct—that is, abstaining from criminal activity—as a job skill (Monahan, 2013, p. 113). In 1980, in Gunther v. Iowa State Men’s Reformatory, the Eighth Circuit Court agreed with the district court that public safety was not a sufficient defense for a BFOQ denying women’s rights to work with incarcerated men. According to Gunther, not letting them do so “would violate inmate privacy rights, jeopardize prison security and rehabilitative programs, place both male and female guards in increased danger, and lead to major disciplinary problems (Farkas & Rand, 1997, p. 998).

(Men) Prisoners’ Rights to Privacy Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) also raised the men prisoners’ rights to privacy (particularly when inmates are having body searches, showering, dressing, and using the toilet) as a reason to restrict women from guarding men. Chapter 7 mentioned the gendered

nature of prisoners using lawsuits for better and fairer conditions, reporting that men prisoners are far more likely than their women counterparts to use the court system. This appears consistent regarding lawsuits about cross-gender prisoner supervision, even though women prisoners are far more likely than men prisoners to be leered at and sexually abused by opposite-sex guards (Culley, 2012; Maschke, 1996; Monahan, 2013). Maschke (1996) reports that when comparing the judges’ processing of lawsuits brought by men as opposed to women prisoners regarding cross-sex supervision (when the guard and the inmate are different sexes) privacy claims, the seriousness of the gender differences is profound: “Although male inmates may have objected to cross-gender supervision because they were unaccustomed to being objects of the ‘female gaze,’ female prisoners may have been resisting more than the gaze of male correctional officers,” that is, physical sexual abuse (p. 35). Some research on women working in men’s prisons and jails has found that the job is often structured to deny women and men equal assignments, to the disadvantage of women workers (Batton & Wright, 2019; Belknap, 1991; Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011; Zimmer, 1986). Maschke’s (1996) careful legal analysis of the court cases men prisoners brought regarding their privacy rights not to be crosssex supervised (supervised by women staff) concluded that the court decisions permitted prison employers “to discriminate against women without having to provide objective evidence of the need for the policies they had implemented” (p. 37). A jail study of women and men, both staff and inmates, however, concluded that the “sexual and cultural differences among officers and prisoners as they are played out in the jail setting make the male guarding female (M/F) situation more problematic than the female guarding male (F/M) situation” (Alpert & Crouch, 1991, p. 315). Despite all the fuss made over male prisoners’ rights to privacy from female guards, research indicates that most incarcerated men report that women officers do not violate their privacy (Kissel & Katsampes, 1980; Zimmer, 1986). Although there is some research documenting women guards’ sexual harassment and sexual assaults of incarcerated boys and men (Buchanan, 2012; Smith, 2012), this is far less common than men guards sexually harassing and assaulting incarcerated women and girls. Regardless of a victim or perpetrator gender, and whether abuse is cross-sex, staff who sexually abuse inmates should not only be fired but also brought up on formal charges of sexual abuse in the CLS.

Court decisions and scholarly reviews of these decisions are inconsistent as to whether prisoners’ rights to not have cross-sex privacy should supersede guards’ rights to cross-sex supervision (Bernat & Zupan, 1989; Lawrence & Marian, 1998; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011). The most recent case on this, Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco in 2010, “held that certain policies of hiring only females to correctional positions [guarding women inmates] are necessary to protect the essence of the business of correctional facilities, including jail security, safety, privacy and rehabilitation of inmates and efficiency and morale among deputies” (Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011, p. 111). Significantly, a 1993 court case, Jordan v. Gardner, found that while the use of men guards to perform body searches of women prisoners does not violate their right to privacy (the Fourth Amendment), such actions do violate women prisoners’ rights to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (the Eighth Amendment), given the high rate of women prisoners who have survived physical and sexual violence at the hands of men (Farkas & Rand, 1999; Stollman, 1993). It was found that such searches could exacerbate preexisting mental conditions resulting from prior victimizations. There are many points to discern in untangling cross-sex supervision in jails and prisons. Grappling with how to balance whether prisoners have the right to be same-sex supervised with jail and prison workers’ rights to supervise cross-gender inmates becomes extremely complicated. Quite simply, however, if professional ethical jail and prison supervisory staff were hired and monitored (and fired if they violated basic supervision expectations), cross-sex supervision would not be a problem. One question regarding jail and prison cross-sex supervision of prisoners is how is this different from patients having cross-sex health care from medical providers? It is different given the variances in medical and incarceration institutions, but presumably, if a medical worker or prison guard acts professionally and ethically, whether the worker and prisoner/patient is cross-sex should be irrelevant. The cross-sex supervision becomes additionally murky (and ridiculous) when acknowledging workers’ LGBTQI+ status. For example, with the “no cross-sex” approach, would it be acceptable to have lesbians supervise incarcerated men but not incarcerated women? Prison structures can also both limit and exacerbate prisoners’ dignity and rights to privacy. For example, opaque shower and toilet doors or partial barriers (where the prisoner’s feet and head can be seen) would help balance prisoners’ privacy and cross-sex supervision

discomfort, as well as prisoners’ general dignity and privacy (including for same-sex supervision) (Zimmer, 1986). Notably, one court case, U.S. v. Gregory in 1989, brought by a woman whose job was restricted in a jail from work directly supervising men inmates, found on her behalf given that video cameras supervising men inmates were operated by women dispatchers (Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011). Women supervising male inmates should not be different from men supervising female inmates. But it is different because of acute gender differences in society and carceral faculties, inmates’ life experiences prior to incarceration, gendered differences in sexual abuse perpetration, gendered risks for sexual abuse victimization, and how inmates “do time”—topics covered previously in this book. Although the Title IV sex discrimination cases in prisons and jails are fraught with “real” gendered concerns (e.g., the risk of rape), prison/jail administrators who are professional and ethical and who hire professional and ethical prison and jail staff, providing everyone with regular training and holding violators accountable, can overcome most of these problems.

GENDER SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN GUARDS’ JOB PERFORMANCE AND ATTITUDES The research on women guards was almost nonexistent until the mid-1980s. These early studies examined the pioneering roles of women guards after Title VII was passed, especially regarding women guarding men inmates. The research on gender and guarding falls into several categories, and when reading this section and subsections, it is useful to look for how these questions and their results overlap: What was the resistance/acceptance by coworkers, supervisors, and administrators to the first women working as guards in men’s prisons/jails after Title VII? How did/do women and men guards view each other?

Are there gender differences and patterns in how guards perform their jobs? Are their gender differences in how guards view inmates? Are guard stress and satisfaction levels gendered? Britton’s (2003) study found that men often “progress” from the military into the job of guard, but even without military experience the job is masculinized and rarely a stretch, and Helfgott and colleagues (2018) more recent large study stresses the “male-dominated culture” in prison/jail (and other CLS) jobs (p. 250). Women, on the other hand, “are pulled into the occupation by low wages in their local labor market or by financial adversity after divorce,” and once hired, despite the officers’ gender, “they enter into a deeply gendered institution” (Britton, 2003, p. 105). Britton (2003) states that working in prisons/jails “remains among the occupations of last resort” (p. 104). C. Fisher (2019), however, appropriately documents how employment in the New York City Department of Corrections “has been a site of professional advancement” for African American women since the 1970s, providing “a foothold in a traditionally white and male profession” in these “good jobs that have offered economic security and political power to black women in corrections” (p. iv). She carefully juxtaposes this with the rise of mass incarceration that has so disproportionately impacted African Americans as inmates, but how this has also increased African American women’s occupational well-being.

Resistance to Women Guards and Guards’ Views of Gender and the Job The first research in the 1980s and most of the 1990s on women becoming guards in men’s prisons/jails reported significant confusion and hostility directed toward these women by male guards, supervisors, and administrators, largely due to these men’s perceptions of the guarding job as “masculine” and therefore needing men to conduct the work (S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Pogrebin & Poole, 1997; Zimmer, 1986). One such study found “even in those situations where women officers have proven themselves in physical encounters with aggressive inmates, male

staff continue to perceive them as inadequate in such situations,” and they often “take over from female deputies when in fact female officers are handling inmate aggression well and have things under control” (Pogrebin & Poole, 1997, p. 45). Zimmer’s (1986) study of some of the first women working in a men’s prison found that this masculinity confusion by the men was a no-win situation for the women guards. First, some men rejected competent women guards because they were threatened by the fact that a woman could do “their” (a “man’s”) job. At the same time, some of these same and some other sexist men believed that incompetent women officers were “better women” than the women who competently guarded male inmates, but they were unacceptable guards (Zimmer, 1986). Either way, these men viewed women as unsuitable coworkers (or supervisee’s or staff) to guard convicted men. The women guards also reported that their male coworkers frequently ignored them (acting as if they were not present), assigned them the worst posts, and wrote them up for actions against prison policies that the male officers regularly violated and were not sanctioned for (Zimmer, 1986). Like Zimmer (1986), Pogrebin and Poole’s (1997) large study of jail guards found many male guards assumed they had to physically protect the women guards and resented this added burden. Zimmer (1986) asserts that “rather than questioning the necessity of masculinity, most male guards question the ability of women to perform the job without it” (p. 57). If a woman can do the job, her “feminine” identity is questioned and she is seen as abnormal or lesbian (whether or not she is). Clearly these stereotypes are damaging for women who want to be taken seriously as guards (almost all women guards), and they are homophobic. A more recent study found no gender differences in guards’ responses to aggressive male prison inmates (Tewksbury & Collins, 2006). Sexual harassment is one of the most tangible indications of male guards and supervisors’ hostility to the women guards (Belknap, 1991; Helfgott et al., 2018; Peterson, 1982; Pogrebin & Poole, 1997; Zimmer, 1986). Often the sexual harassment is through rumors linking the women guards with other guards or inmates (Peterson, 1982). In Zimmer’s (1986) classic study, virtually all women guards could describe at least one sexual harassment incident. Another study asked whether sexual harassment was “an issue,” rather than the rate of experiencing it, and one third of the women guards (particularly the younger women) identified it as a problem (Belknap,

1991). Stohr and her colleagues (1998) studied sexual harassment of workers in women’s jails and found that “only” 22% of the jail employees reported being victimized by sexual harassment on the job and that 85% of these self-identified victims were women. This study indicated that sexual harassment may have decreased over time as women guards are more common and have had more longevity in these jobs, that it is less common in women’s than men’s jails, and less common among women in mid-level administrative compared to line-staff women guards (Stohr et al., 1998). Recall the prior discussion in this chapter on tokens. A widespread practice with tokens is for the larger, dominant group to place the tokens into categories that they better understand (or to actually diminish and/or degrade the outsiders). The example was Kanter’s (1977a, 1977b) categories of pet, mother, seductress, and iron maiden labels assigned to women breaking into peer positions with men in big corporations. Zimmer’s (1986) ethnography of women guards in men’s prisons in New York and Rhode Island identified three roles or “adjustment strategies” regarding the women’s work, which she compares to S. E. Martin’s (1979) roles for women police (reported in the next chapter). The adjustment strategies were institutional, modified, and inventive. The institutional role officers are rule and policy followers that tend to downplay their female status (comparable to S. E. Martin’s [1979] POLICEwomen reported in the following chapter). They expect to do the same job as the men officers and are invested in maintaining professional relationships with everyone they work with in the prison. Zimmer’s (1986) modified role officers do not view themselves as being as capable as men of performing the job and prefer safe assignments where they have no contact with the prisoners (analogous to S. E. Martin’s [1979] policeWOMEN category reported in the next chapter). They often rely on male officers to back them up. In Zimmer’s (1986) third role, the inventive role officers, unlike the institutional and modified officers who view themselves as equally or less capable, respectively, than the male officers, the inventives see women officers as advantageous, better workers, in the prison system compared to the men. Inventives see their physical weakness (relative to men’s) as overcompensated for by their superior communication skills and respect for prisoners. They believe in the importance of seeing the prisoners as individuals and count on backing from the prisoners (which they typically have). As expected, inventive officers receive the most hostility from male coworkers and are the most openly resentful of this hostility.

Drawing on Kanter’s (1977b) work, Jurik (1988) studied women prison workers’ entry into guarding male prisoners and found they had to address negative stereotyping by “striking a balance” between competing negative stereotypes. “Avoiding the role traps of incompetent pet and seductress often leaves women officers with a third iron-maiden-like stereotypic role. Women officers who work hard to demonstrate competence are alternatively described as ‘climbers,’ ‘dykes,’ or ‘cold’; they are isolated and distrusted by their colleagues” (Jurik, 1988, p. 295). In fact, some of the strategies women prison guards developed to combat this oppression included emphasizing humor, professionalism, a team approach, and sponsorship (Jurik, 1988). A 1998 Minnesota study of men prison guards’ perceptions of women guards indicated that while men guards were becoming more accepting of women guards, the women still faced a considerable amount of sexism by these men (Lawrence & Marian, 1998). For example, although most male guards believed that women should be hired as guards in men’s prisons, one fifth did not. The gender differences were greatest regarding men guards’ assessments of women’s ability to use enough force to control prisoners, backing up a partner in a dangerous situation, and other emergencies (Lawrence & Marian, 1998). Additionally, men guards (37%) were more than twice as likely as women guards (16%) to believe that men guards’ safety was endangered when they worked with women guards. Men with more years of experience on the job rated the women less favorably than they rated newer men guards. Thus, despite these negative views by male coworkers and supervisors, more recent research indicates that men’s acceptance of women has improved (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Hemmens et al., 2002; Lawrence & Marian, 1998). A 2002 study reported that male jail and prison staff generally “had a positive opinion regarding females in the workforce” (Hemmens et al., 2002, p. 6). As more women are hired into these traditionally male jobs, along with increased training and policies on harassment, and the #MeToo movement, it is hoped that women’s work environment is increasingly less hostile. Some research indicates that the more secure the prison is (e.g., maximum security is the highest), the more resistance men will have to their women coworkers in these prisons (Lawrence & Marian, 1998; Simpson & White, 1985).

Job Performance and Attitudes

One of the first books on women offenders, victims, and CLS workers, Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice, was published in 1987 by British feminist Allison Morris. She concluded, “Overall, the presence of female officers in men’s institutions seems to have normalized the environment, relaxed tension, and led to improvements in the inmates’ behavior, dress and language” (p. 157). Despite Zimmer’s (1986) finding that the first women guards faced extremely strong resistance from men officers, it is notable that she found most men prisoners supported the women officers. Farkas’s (1999, 2000) research on prison guards reported that men’s resistance to their women coworkers inhibited the women’s job performance. Her findings included how the women guards felt compelled to act stricter and more punitive than they thought they should in order to be accepted by the men guards. Some women found it particularly stressful when men guards were in a physical altercation with an inmate, and the women worried if they intervened they might make a mistake, but if they did not intervene, they were not doing their jobs (Farkas, 2000, p. 43). Two explanatory models, the gender model and the job model, have been suggested to guide the research on gender differences in how guards perform their jobs (Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Zimmer, 1986). According to the gender model, gender differences in guards’ occupational experiences are shaped by the attitudes, prior experiences, and preferred modes of interaction that they bring to the job (Zimmer, 1986, p. 12). For example, “gender models suggest that women place greater importance than do men on relationships with others in their work environment” (Jurik & Halemba, 1984, p. 554). Alternatively, according to the job model, the organizational structure of the occupation and the institution are what impact guards’ gender differences. Similarly, Batton and Wright (2019) contend “patriarchy affects the structure and organization of employment” in the CLS, which affects women’s and men’s representation in numbers “as well as the nature of work and opportunities that they are afforded” (p. 289). For example, some jails and prisons restrict women guards to supervising incarcerated women or children. Both models operate simultaneously to promote gender differences among prison and jail staff members (Jurik, 1985, p. 376; Jurik & Halemba, 1984, p. 552; Zimmer, 1986, p. 13), but two studies found the gender model more influential than the job model (Belknap, 1991; Jurik & Halemba, 1984). In one study the women jail guards were described each of the models and asked if one was more influential. They identified the gender model as a better

explanation of how they differ from the men guards, particularly in terms of using less force, which they attributed to their life experiences, skills, and abilities as women, often including their experiences as mothers (Belknap, 1991). Zimmer’s (1987) work on the first women guards in men’s prisons found the women used innovative work strategies not only because they encountered discriminatory and organizational structural barriers on the job but also because they brought different skills, experiences, and abilities to guarding than their male coworkers. These gender differences often resulted in poorer performance evaluations because they were compared to how men did the job rather than how effective they were. Britton’s (1997b, 2003) more recent research of women and men working in both men’s and women’s prisons as guards addressed “gendered organizational logic,” or ways in which the training, policies, and practices within an organization are “explicitly and implicitly gendered” (Britton, 1997a, p. 802). Britton (1997a, 2003) identified two ways in which the application of so-called gender-neutral policies and practices resulted in gender differences. First, the training presumed a male recruit. Second, the notions that both administrators and guards (regardless of guard gender) held, about the “natures of male and female officers,” superseded any gender-neutral policies. This was most apparent in the officers’ assignments to various posts, which were sexist perceptions that women guards cannot deal with violent, especially violent men, prisoners. Thus, Britton (1997a, 2003) concluded that the “organizational logic” is “deeply gendered” in prison systems and that applying a theory of “masculinized” organizations is important to understanding prison work/jobs. A study of guards in two medium-security men’s prisons found both women and men view gender differences in how the prisoners are supervised/guarded (Farkas, 2000). The men guards typically described the women guards as less assertive and authoritative than men guards and too “soft,” “friendly,” and “nice,” applying words like “mother” and “social worker” disparagingly toward their female coworkers. Notably, the women guards viewed these gender differences “in a more positive light”: The women viewed female guards, relative to male guards, as more human service oriented and more appropriately drawing on interpersonal skills. Farkas (2000, p. 37) also addressed the intersection of racism and sexism as reported by an African American woman guard:

I have to show I can cut it. I am Black and I am a woman— two strikes against me. Because I am Black, I might feel sorry for inmates. Because I am female, I will be afraid of inmates. When I first started, I got very little help from men I worked with. I had to ask things. I was finally placed on a unit with a Black male officer and he showed me what I was supposed to do. Some research on women guards found a tendency for conservative gender role attitudes (Belknap, 1991; Rader, 2007; Zimmer, 1986). A small study found that most women guards, while holding positive views of themselves, tended to hold negative views of the other women guards (Rader, 2007). A long-standing finding regarding gender differences in guards’ attitudes is that compared with men, women tend to be more supportive of rehabilitation and play a human service role (Belknap, 1991; Griffin, 2002; Hussemann & Page, 2011; Jurik, 1985; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Kissel & Katsampes, 1980; Lerman & Page, 2012; Walters, 1992; Zimmer, 1986; Zupan, 1986). Notably, one Minnesota prison guard study found that although women had less punitive attitudes than men, regardless of officer gender, guards who worked at women’s (compared to men’s) prisons, in lower (compared to higher) security men’s prisons, and who had less tenure working in a prison, were also less likely to support punishment (compared to rehabilitation) as the purpose of incarceration (Hussemann & Page, 2011). Another study reported that while women officers were more rehabilitative in orientation than men officers were, there were no gender differences concerning their rehabilitation/custodial views, punitiveness, and readiness to use force orientations and attitudes (Griffin, 2002). Importantly, some studies have found no gender differences in guards’ support for either a punishment model or a rehabilitative model for prisoners (Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, Jiang, & Stevenson, 2010; Lopez & Russell, 2008). Consistent with women guards tending to be more rehabilitation than punishment oriented, studies report that women prison and jail workers have a less aggressive style than male penal workers, that the women are better at deescalating potentially violent situations (Belknap, 1991; Gates, 1976; Kissel & Katsampes, 1980). Moreover, one study found women guards have more positive and optimistic views of inmates’ ability to change than men guards (Hussemann &

Page, 2011), and another found men scored higher than women on the “depersonalization subscale,” which measured the guards’ “impersonal and unfeeling responses toward” the inmates (Gould et al., 2013, p. 39). Two studies report that men guards are more likely than women guards to “talk out” or “reason with” defiant inmates (Farkas, 1999; Jenne & Kersting, 1996). Women guards were more likely than men guards, however, to issue inmate conduct reports (Farkas, 2000). The author attributed this to the women officers’ likely elevated concerns of being “tested” by the prisoners, and by not responding formally, they might fail some test of respect with them. Despite some of the resistance men guards have had historically to women guards’ ability to handle aggressive male inmates, there are no gender differences in guards’ likelihood of calling for backup from other officers in a prisoner dispute (Farkas, 2000; Jenne & Kersting, 1996). Moreover, some research on guards reports that compared with men’s perception, women perceive the prisons to be less dangerous (Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, et al., 2010; Lawrence & Marian, 1998; Wright & Saylor, 1991), prison records indicate that women guards were no more likely than men guards to be assaulted or injured by the prisoners (Konda et al., 2012; Lawrence & Marian, 1998), and women guards may be less likely than men guards to be killed on the job (Konda et al., 2012).2 2 Konda and his colleagues found that among guards working in prisons and jails across the United States from 1999 to 2008, 11% of the fatalities were of women guards and 27% of the guard injuries treated in the emergency room were of men guards. Given statistics available on gender representation of guards, Konda et al.’s findings indicate no gender differences in emergency room–related injuries but that compared to women guards, men guards are at an elevated risk of fatality on the job.

Job Satisfaction and Stress Many studies addressing guards’ job satisfaction also examine job stress, with the reasonable expectation that the two are correlated: The more job satisfaction a worker has, the less job stress that worker feels (Cheeseman & Downey, 2012). Considering their reported experiences of dealing with male coworkers’ hostility, it is not surprising that most research conducted in the initial decades

following the enactment of Title VII found that relative to their male coworkers, women working in jails and prisons reported elevated stress and lower job satisfaction (Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Wright & Saylor, 1991; Zupan, 1986). McMahon (1998) attributed women’s elevated stress, at least in part, to the constant pressure of proving job competence and worthiness to male coworkers and supervisors. Research on women guards in the 1980s and 1990s also often reported them as generally pessimistic about the likelihood of their own and other women’s advancements and promotions (Belknap, 1991; Chapman et al., 1983; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; McMahon, 1998; Nallin, 1981). In one guard study, satisfaction was more related to officers’ race than gender, but intersections between gender and race/ethnicity were significant: African American officers of both genders were generally less satisfied than their White counterparts with their work, regardless of the racial make-up of the prisoners or guards in the institution, and white women reported higher job satisfaction than white men (Britton, 1997b). white women’s higher rating of job satisfaction was associated with their higher evaluations of on-thejob supervision. African American women reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction compared with all other officers (Britton, 1997b). Although evaluations of women coworkers did not vary depending on whether the institution was a jail or prison, in Hemmens and colleagues’ (2002) study, the respondents’ gender, security level of the prison/percentage of women staff, and whether the respondent had prior military service had the greatest impact on the evaluation of women officers. The institutions with higher security levels also had the lowest rates of women guards and evaluated women officers less favorably, women tended to evaluate women more positively, and staff with prior military experience rated women less positively. Some guard studies published since 2000 continue to find elevated job-related stress among women (relative to their male coworkers) (Cheeseman & Downey, 2012; Dial et al., 2010; Tewksbury & Collins, 2006), with one finding that gender “was the most significant personal characteristic in predicting work stress” (Dial et al., 2010, p. 613). Encouragingly, however, research since the turn of the century more commonly indicates improvements in women’s jail/prison work, finding no gender differences in job stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Griffin, 2006; Griffin et al., 2012; Halpern et al., 2009; Hogan et al., 2013; Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, et al., 2010; Lambert, Hogan, Jiang, et al., 2010; Triplett et al., 1999; Wells et al., 2009) or

job satisfaction (Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, et al., 2010) levels. A rare study of prison wardens also found no gender differences in jobrelated stress (Schiff & Leip, 2019). Exceptions were some studies that found worse stress (Morse et al., 2011) and lower job satisfaction (Hogan et al., 2013) among men than women jail/prison workers. Lambert, Kim, Keena, and Cheeseman (2017) suggest the studies found improvements for women because “each decade has resulted in more and more woman working in institutional corrections, especially in male inmate facilities,” and identify women’s lessened token status as improving their job stress and job satisfaction (p. 198). Triplett (1999) and her colleagues started parsing the gendered nature of prison/jail workers’ job stress by focusing on the stress of balancing work and home (with home stress primarily being child care). Even though women and men reported similar levels of workhome stress, it only impacted women’s overall stress levels. Triplett and her colleagues (1999) attribute this gender difference to gender role orientation and the societal burden of parenting disproportionately centered on mothers (relative to fathers). Similarly, Lambert, Hogan, and Altheimer, et al.’s (2010) study of staff in a private youth facility found that not only did work-home stress only affect women’s overall job stress, it was the only variable affecting women’s stress. Similarly, Lambert, Hogan, Jiang, and colleagues’ (2010) study found the only characteristic affecting the women’s overall job satisfaction was work-family stress (with increased workfamily stress lowering the overall job satisfaction). Finally, one study found that balancing work and family had the greatest impact on stress for both women and men (Griffin, 2006). Turning to gendered differences in specific stressors other than work-home/child care balance, most studies find guards’ perceptions of on-the-job safety/dangerousness (Lambert et al., 2017; Triplett et al., 1999) as impacting both women’s and men’s job stress and/or job satisfaction, with some studies finding women guards have higher levels of and/or more negatively impactful outcomes of safety/dangerousness relative to men (Griffin et al., 2014; Paoline et al., 2015). The only study that found dangerousness perceptions affected men’s more than women’s overall stress levels was in a private youth facility (Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, et al., 2010). Most guard research found coworker support more commonly reported as a stressor and/or more negatively impactful among women than men guards (Paoline et al., 2015; Tewksbury & Collins, 2006), although

one study found coworker support equally impacted women and men (Griffin, 2006). Some research found no gender differences related to supervisory/administrative/organizational support (Tewksbury & Collins, 2006), others found this disproportionately impacting women guards (Griffin et al., 2014; Paoline et al., 2015), and one study found organizational support significantly impacted men but not women, and it was for equal treatment (Griffin, 2006). Relative to the men working in these men’s prisons, women reported significantly more stress from coworkers and significantly less stress from inmates (Tewksbury & Collins, 2006). Role problems, also called role strain, is a measure of a workers’ stress when their job responsibilities feel ambiguous, ill-defined, unclear, and/or in conflict with each other (and it is sometimes further broken down into these specific role problems). One study found role conflict and role ambiguity disproportionately affected men’s job satisfaction levels (Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, et al., 2010), but more research found role problems disproportionately impact women (Lambert et al., 2017; Paoline et al., 2015). While research (cited earlier in this chapter) in the first few decades following Title VII found women working in prisons and jails were more likely to report gender discrimination in job promotions, some studies in the 2000s find the opposite: Men are significantly more concerned that they are discriminated against in prison/jail promotions, often pinpointing them as “arbitrary” and “informal”; which may be code-speak for “reverse sexism” (Dobrin et al., 2016; Griffin, 2006). Perhaps this could explain the odd gendered relationship of role problems in Lambert and colleagues’ (2017) study described in the previous paragraph. Two models have been used to try to determine the gendered nature and twists in gendered job discrimination in prisons/jails (Dobrin et al., 2016; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Van Voorhis et al., 1991). The importationdifferential experiences model posits that prison/jail employees’ socialization prior to working in these jobs, via demographic variables such as gender and race, influence individuals’ experiences with and how they view discrimination. Alternatively, the work-role prisonization model speculates that on-the-job prison/jail environments and structural factors shape these employees’ views of discrimination. Research suggests that the importation model was more dominant during the studies in the first few decades following Title VII when women reported discrimination in promotions (Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Zimmer, 1988), but in this century when men are

more likely to report discrimination in promotions, the work-role prisonization model is more dominant (Dobrin et al., 2016). In another guard study, women and men reported similar levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization on the job, but the women also reported higher levels of job-related personal achievement and accomplishment than the men (Carlson, Anson, & Thomas, 2003). Notably, for both women and men, stress-training programs decreased the levels of reported job exhaustion and stress (Carlson et al., 2003). In another guard study, relative to white women and men and Latinx women, African American women and men and Latinx men reported less job stress and more efficacy in working with prisoners, regardless of the prisoners’ races/ethnicities (Britton, 1997b).

SUMMARY This chapter is an introduction to understanding women working in the criminal legal system (CLS), with a focus on women working in prisons and jails as guards. Perhaps nowhere has resistance to women workers been more heated than women attempting to work with incarcerated men. This is likely because no jobs threaten men’s sense of masculinity more than those of arresting, deterring, and incapacitating offending men. Women have struggled with various societal restrictions, as well as legislation and court rulings, in attempts to work in the CLS and on equal footing with men. Ironically, while their gender status and the presumed characteristics associated with it (e.g., weakness and deep emotions) were what kept women from access to policing, prison and attorney and court work, their initial entry into these fields was for their presumed “maternal” nature and strengths. Women’s battle to overcome the barriers to work with male offenders has been grueling. The resistance to change did not end by simply “allowing” women to work with incarcerated men with Title VII. While laws are necessary to effect change, government and private business institutions often adhere to policies and practices “saturated with implicit male bias” that ignore or reinforce sexism (Chamallas, 1999, p. 18), and gender-neutral terms in laws and the federal constitution sometimes protect men’s, more than women’s, rights (C. S. Thomas, 1991, p. 116).

The more recent research indicates significant progress in women’s representation, stature, and experiences in the job of guarding men, although research still indicates that women guards face organizational sexism and sexism from some coworkers, supervisors, and administrators. A recent review of studies published in 21 psychological and management journals identified four primary positive themes from increased gender equality in the workplace: improved “performance, social integration, well-being, and justice/moral matters” (M. A. Warren et al., 2019, p. 498). This finding is consistent with what is documented in this and the next two chapters regarding women CLS workers’ overall positive impacts on coworkers and those they are hired to serve (i.e., victims and offenders).

12 WOMEN WORKING IN POLICING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT Domestically and globally females continue to be underrepresented in policing, despite their greater likelihood of advancing themselves through higher education, driving organizational change, and being less likely to use excessive force or be named in civil litigation than their male counterparts. —T. C. Brown, Baldwin, Dierenfeldt, and McCain (2020, p. 143)

This chapter is on women who work in law enforcement as police officers or patrol sheriffs. I avoid the term policewomen, opting for the bulkier phrasing women police officers or simply women officers, given that regardless of sex/gender, present-day law enforcement officers are expected to perform the same job. This is not to deny either the sexism still operating in job assignments and expectations in many departments or the sexist treatment many women police officers experience on the job. Indeed, women are still not always allowed the full range of the job. Rather it is recognition of the power of language and labels and an effort to imply that regardless of gender, law enforcement officers should have the same responsibilities, and thus, the same title. This chapter documents the serious blocks to women’s jobs in policing, many that continue today.1 1 The massive successes in the #BlackLivesMatter movement in 2020 occurred after the submission of this manuscript and, unfortunately, without time to adequately incorporate it into this edition (see the Preface). I want to acknowledge the unprecedented positive changes being made in policing in this brief time and look forward to addressing them fully in the next edition.

WHAT IS POLICING? Jennifer Brown’s (2016) “revisiting” review of Frances Heidensohn’s classic 1992 book Women in Control? The Role of Women in Law Enforcement reminds us that Heidensohn asked “the important and enduring question ‘what is policing?’ She notes not only how achieving an answer to this question with any consensus and clarity is intensely problematic (policing by whom, for whom and of whom)” (p. 232). This discussion is key to women’s representation (percentage among employees) in policing, as it is so strongly intertwined with the ongoing question of how much policing is (or should be) crime-fighting and is (or should be) service- or communityoriented. Reframing ideal police work as at least, or even more, community- and serviceoriented than crime-fighting began in the 1960s with the civil rights and anti–Vietnam War movements’ protests and riots. There was unprecedented police use of tear gas and billy clubs in these protests, and the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four Kent State University students peacefully protesting the U.S. bombing of Cambodia in 1970. Note Germann’s (1969) gendered language in one of the first publications advocating for community policing: “The police are seen by some citizens as men who ‘protect and serve’ and by other citizens as men who ‘coerce and beat’” (p. 89). Germann (1969) also claimed that effective community policing required the police to to demonstrate, by attitude, pronouncement, and deed, that the goal “to protect and to serve” applies to every individual and group within the community—young and old, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, black and white, popular and unpopular, believer and non-believer—that crime prevention has as high a priority as crime repression, that human rights are

as highly regarded as property rights, and that all policies and procedures are implemented with essential fairness always and everywhere. (p. 95) More recently, Colvin (2014) stated that community policing depicts “an acceptance that the community served has an active and legitimate role in the successful resolution of crime and social order problems, and these partnerships with the community and its members can be much more effective than traditional policing strategies” (p. 183). Community policing has not only been supported for decades by many scholars, practitioners, and citizens, but it is increasingly supported in the context that community policing is more consistent with how women, as a group, tend to do police work (as reported in this chapter). Therefore, increasing women’s representation (percentage of officers) in policing is not only a matter of gender equity, but it is also more consistent with the goals of community policing. Workman-Stark (2017) stresses that while community policing’s occupational identity shift from crime-fighting to service-oriented represents “a move toward a more democratic form of policing and created opportunities for officers to embrace a positive self-identity that is linked to collaborating with communities, community policing is still often portrayed as contrary to real police work” (p. 51). Similarly, Britton (2000) notes that community policing “is feminine” compared to the “masculine” crime-fighting policing (p. 1583).

WOMEN BREAKING INTO POLICE WORK Chapter 11 described the history of the first women working in prisons because it is so closely tied to the implementation of the first women’s prisons after women’s activism to have women inmates housed in separate institutions and to receive different “care.” These women prison reformers, thus, gained legitimacy for women professionals in public agencies serving women, which “paved the way for the first police matrons and then women police officers to follow in establishing their own legitimacy in the criminal justice field” (Schulz, 1989, p. 117). Thus, women worked in women’s prisons long before they worked with incarcerated adult men. The most useful approach when comparing women’s entry into jail and prison work with their entry into policing and law enforcement is, for jail/prison jobs, to examine women’s demands to work with incarcerated men (most of those incarcerated) and, for police work, to examine women’s demands to be assigned to what S. E. Martin (1980) labels “the backbone of policing,” patrol duty (p. 48). Stated alternatively, women workers in the criminal legal system (CLS) asked not to be restricted to matronly, motherly, sisterhood duties of working solely with women and children.

Comparisons Between Women Breaking Into Policing With Women Breaking Into Prison/Jail Work The last chapter stated that there are significant parallels regarding women’s entry into jobs as prison and jail guards and those in policing. There are at least five similarities between women’s access to these CLS jobs. Like women breaking into jail/prison work, the focus is on sexist maternal and nurturing roles (i.e., working with women and children offenders and victims) (Feinman, 1986; Kurtz, Linnemann, & Williams, 2012; Pollock-Byrne, 1986; Schulz, 1989, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c), the significance of legislation (e.g., Title VII) (Feinman, 1986; Hale, 1992; S. E. Martin, 1980, 1990; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Pollock-Byrne, 1986; Schulz, 1993), the extreme hostility and resistance from men coworkers, supervisors, and administration to the first women working patrol (Balkin, 1988; Belknap & Shelley, 1993; Bloch & Anderson, 1974; Christopher, 1991; Gratch, 1995; Heidensohn, 1992; Jacobs, 1987; Marshall, 1973; C. A. Martin, 1983; S. E. Martin, 1980, 1990, 1994; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Pollock-Byrne, 1986; Pope & Pope, 1986; Remmington, 1983; Rivlin, 1981; K. Segrave, 1995; L. J. Sherman, 1973; Timmins & Hainsworth, 1989; Wexler & Logan, 1983), women’s overall success in performance evaluations of the first women in patrol jobs despite their hostile and sexist work environments (H. W. Bartlett & Rosenblum, 1977; Bartol, Bergen, Volckens, & Knoras, 1992; Bloch &

Anderson, 1974; Grennan, 1987; L. J. Sherman, 1975; Sichel, Quint, & Smith, 1978), and the additional racism and homophobia experienced by women of Color and LGBTQI+ women. The first African American women hired in policing were a minority within a minority—they were typically segregated from white women police and citizens and were hired to work solely with African American women and children (Schulz, 2004b). Just as the first white women hired into law enforcement had typically acquired (or been required to have) more formal education than white men in policing and White women not in policing, the first Black women in policing were usually better educated than everyone else, and they were often teachers, social workers, or ministers’ wives with status in their communities prior to their policing jobs (Schulz, 2004b, p. 486).

Phases and Stages of Women’s Entry Into Policing The entrance of women into U.S. police work began in the late 1800s, spurred by increased problems with women and girls that male police officers seemed uninterested in or unable to confront, particularly the “moral crisis” of prostitution/sex work (Appier, 1998; Feinman, 1986). Thus, similar to women’s entrance into guard positions, women’s entrance into policing “relied heavily on maternal rhetoric and imagery” (Schulz, 2004c, p. 42), including responding to “troubled” girls and women (L. A. Jackson, 2006). British criminologist Frances Heidensohn (1992) published a pathbreaking, comparative book, Women in Control? The Role of Women in Law Enforcement, on women’s entry into policing in the United States and United Kingdom. This book identified four historical phases of women’s entry into policing. Many U.S. scholars reported similar phases (Appier, 1998; R. M. Douglas, 1999; Garcia, 2003, p. 200; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Schulz, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; K. Segrave, 1995). Five years after Heidensohn’s book was published, British criminologist (and student of Heidensohn’s) J. Brown (1997) identified stages of women’s entry into policing in Europe. Figure 12.1 highlights the components of Heidensohn’s and Brown’s phases. Although I focus on the United States in this book because I cannot even incorporate all of the U.S. research, Heidensohn and Brown most certainly kicked off the feminist scholarship on women in policing from a more comparative reference, and I am therefore including some of that in this section.

Heidensohn’s (1992) Phases of Women’s Entry Into Police Work in the United Kingdom and the United States The sexist view of women as matrons/maternal heavily influenced Heidensohn’s first two historical phases. In Heidensohn’s first phase, moral reform, rescue, and matrons (1840–1910 in the United States and 1915 in England), women were viewed as social workers more than “cops,” with the restricted roles of helping women and children, including “rescuing” prostitutes and delinquent girls. In 1905, Lola Baldwin was hired as a “safety worker” in Portland, Oregon, to protect women and girls from male miners, lumberjacks, and laborers (Feinman, 1986). “Many women activists devoted their entire careers in social work and social science to identifying the welfare needs of working-class women and children and pressing for the establishment of government programs and institutions to meet those needs” (Appier, 1998, p. 13). The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), “probably the most powerful women’s group of the era,” is credited with spearheading the demand for police matrons in the United States for the last quarter of the 1800s (Schulz, 1995, p. 12). An executive officer of the New York City WCTU with a long record of seeking police matrons claimed they should be middle-aged, “scrupulously clean in person and dress, with a face to commend her and a manner to compel respect; quiet, calm, observant, with faith in God and hope for humanity” (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 7). In 1888, state legislation was passed to hire two such matrons in each New York City police station but given that no funding was provided for these positions, no police matrons were hired. The press played an active role, arguing for matrons in New York City, but this city was later than many others, not hiring its first police matrons until 1891 (K.

Segrave, 1995). This is puzzling given that in 1845 “New York was one of the first cities in the nation to employ jail matrons—the foremothers of policewomen” (Schulz, 2004c, p. 40).

Figure 12.1 ● Historical Phases and Stages of Women’s Entry Into Policing The first two decades of the 1900s in the United States were important in advancing women into police departments, albeit in stereotypical roles. Hence, Heidensohn (1992) labeled her second phase specialists and pioneers. In this era, women were hired into police departments but still worked in specialized roles confined to sexist “gender” skills (Garcia, 2003; Heidensohn, 1992; L. A. Jackson, 2006; S. E. Martin, 1980; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996). Heidensohn (1992) states this phase lasted from 1915 to 1930 in England, but S. E. Martin and Jurik (1996) identify their similar “specialist” phase as lasting from 1910, with the advent of the first “policewoman” in the United States, until 1972 and the passing of Title VII. Although women were hired as police officers in more U.S. cities from 1918 to 1929, “in absolute terms their number remained small” (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 44). “In 1930 there were reportedly 600 women police officers employed in 289 communities in the United States” (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 85). At any rate, there is considerable evidence that various women’s groups in large cities across the United States advocated for the hiring of “matrons” and “policewomen” around 1910, with many women willing to have these jobs. Moreover, the pressure from these women’s organizations was the primary stimulus for women’s appointments to police departments in the United States between 1910 and 1970 (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 24), notwithstanding the small numbers. Heidensohn (1992) reports that England’s struggle for women police officers, relative to the United States, was more prolonged and required far more organizing and lobbying by women’s organizations. However, in both countries, these initial hires did not guarantee the security of women in policing: Instead, their entry was every bit as precarious as their initial hiring (K. Segrave, 1995).

Notably, the longevity of the sense of women as inherently maternal and of the “appropriateness” of assigning women to specialized tasks commensurate with their nurturing is evidenced by some of the all-woman units. The Los Angeles City Mothers’ Bureau, a branch of the LAPD, lasted from 1914 to 1964 and was staffed completely by women police officers to work in crime prevention and give advice and aid on such matters as “disobedient children, spousal support, abusive husbands, alcoholism, immigration and citizenship, neighborhood quarrels, adultery, unemployment, and adoptions” (Appier, 1998, p. 73). The woman-only New York City precinct that operated in Midtown Manhattan from 1921 to 1923, started with great fanfare but ended in obscurity after only two years (Schulz, 2004c). “Events leading to the creation of the women’s precinct illustrate the problems that developed from the nurturant roles first carved out by early policewomen” (Schulz, 2004c, p. 39). More specifically, women’s entry into the police precinct due to their “natural maternal roles” stressed helping women and children and, although supporting the start of this precinct, also led to its demise. These women were stymied by the difficulty of charting a middle ground between maternal/matron “rescue” roles and a more professional persona (Schulz, 2004c, p. 43). Moreover, the existing NYC matrons were, as might be expected, threatened by the new “policewomen” who had salaries and educational and social status attainment and “would replace them in the few noncustodial tasks they had managed to carve out for themselves” (Schulz, 2004c, p. 43). Initially, this women’s police division was 18 paid women and 5,000 volunteers known as the “Women’s Police Reserve,” which consisted largely of men police officers’ wives and sisters (Schulz, 2004c, p. 44). The Reservists “wore uniforms and held infantry drills” while the matrons and policewomen did not (Schulz, 2004c, p. 44). Moreover, the Reservists were mostly upper-middle class, while the matrons were mostly working class. Not surprisingly, this resulted in significant infighting between the paid and volunteer workers. A final nail in the coffin for the Women’s Precinct was that “although policewomen saw themselves as specialists within the police department, they lacked the credentials that social workers now saw as vital to establishing a basis for their own professional advancement” (Schulz, 2004c, p. 64). Heidensohn (1992) labeled her third phase latency and depression (1930–1945 in both the United States and England), because the hiring of women police stagnated (p. 54). She attributes this phase to the Depression, but even more so, a result of women’s insecure entry into policing, which made a poor basis for expansion. Evidence of this is that in 1925, the City Council in Los Angeles considered reclassifying women officers from members of the LAPD to civilian employees (Appier, 1998). After intensive lobbying, the women officers won the right to continue to be classified as police officers. At any rate, U.S. policing itself did not change much between 1920 and the 1940s, including the hiring and roles of women police officers (Schulz, 1993). However, L. A. Jackson (2006) contends that in England, World War II and the ensuing rise in juvenile delinquency and child neglect resulted in a significant rise in the number of women working in semi-policing roles there. During the postwar period of the 1950s and 1960s, although the number of U.S. women police officers increased and these women were actively attempting to broaden their roles, the restricted, gendered roles stayed constant (Schulz, 1993). Indeed, the culture of policing remained virtually the same for women from the late 19th century to the 1960s (Hale & Bennett, 1995). Heidensohn’s final phase, expansion (the late 1960s and 1970s), was when both England and the United States saw an unprecedented number of women police officers hired, largely due to legislation (see also L. A. Jackson, 2006; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996). Prior to 1968 in the United States, no women were assigned to patrol duty (S. E. Martin, 1980), and until 1972, women police officers’ roles typically evolved around assisting male police officers (Hale, 1992). In 1968, when the Indianapolis Police Department assigned Betty Blankenship and Elizabeth Coffal to patrol, they became the first women police officers to wear uniforms, strap gun belts to their waists, drive a marked patrol car, and answer general-purpose police calls on an equal basis with men police officers. Although they eventually left patrol and returned to traditional women police officers’ duties, they broke the link to the mothering concept that had been the basis of women’s roles in policing.

Once this link was severed, the stage was set for the beginning of the modern women-on-patrol era. (Schulz, 1995, p. 5) Thus, women started in policing with their so-called innate mothering talent, and as documented in this chapter, many women police still struggle with and are criticized for having to balance work and family. One would think all parents and/or people with spouses/intimate partners, regardless of gender, need to address this balance. In one study where women are accused of seeking non-patrol duty, special treatment, not doing their jobs, if they get pregnant so much so that one woman officer terminated her pregnancy “early in her career” to avoid “the anticipated isolation, the loss of her peers’ support and respect in the department” (T. C. Brown et al., 2020).

Brown’s (1997) Phases of Women’s Entry Into Police Work in Europe J. Brown’s (1997) account of European countries identifies a six-stage process by which women become integrated into police forces, whereby one stage leads to the next (see Figure 12.1). Unlike Heidensohn (1992), J. Brown does not list the years of the various stages, but she provides interesting information summarizing the stimuli for the stages and the resistance to them. The first stage, entry, is often the result of a shortage of men to serve as police officers (e.g., during World War I in Europe). The second stage, separated-restricted, is where departmental structure limited women officers to working solely with women and children. Drawing on M. L. Fischer and Gleijm (1994), J. Brown (1997) describes the inhibitor to this stage as the “krabbenmand” or “crab basket” effect, where the women police are so involved in their gendered sphere that “non-involvement attracts attention, as do attempts to dominate or react against the group. The analogy to the crab basket is that a collection of crabs can be kept quite easily in an open basket and any crab that tries to rise is pulled back by the other crabs” (p. 13). According to M. L. Fischer and Gleijm (1994), men in this period of policing used a “pecking order” while women used a “crab basket” management. Advantages of the crab basket are coexistence of personal differences, creativity, and open communication, and disadvantages include weak task orientations, personal conflicts, and ambiguous procedures (p. 3). J. Brown’s separated-restricted stage is followed by the integration stage—where gender integration is mandated by legislation but often met with resistance by men police, which results in litigation by women officers (see also L. A. Jackson, 2006; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996). This litigation leads to the fourth stage, take-off, where the number of women increases substantially, which leads to further backlash, including sexual harassment of women officers by men officers (J. Brown, 1997). Research conducted to document this resistance by men police and poor treatment of women police contributed to the fifth phase, reform, where there is increased inspection by outsiders, a clearer grievance process, and improved training. The final stage is tipover, where the number of women increases from a small minority to more equal representation (about 25%). J. Brown (1997) suggests that this model helps explain the varying rates of women officers across countries due to varying rates of progress through these stages.

The First Women Police in the United States and Globally Countries vary in the dates of admitting women into the police, but the opposition to their admission was almost universal. (J. Brown 1997, p. 3) An international comparison of the first women police is difficult. Specifically, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish who qualifies as a woman police officer. Many of the early women gaining access to policing jobs across the globe, like those in the United States, were volunteers or, if paid, were still considered civilians. Thus, semantics

makes it difficult to establish a clear timeline. In England, there was friction between various groups of women advocating for women police officers on the British police departments, particularly in London. In 1918, the Metropolitan Police Women Patrols was announced, but it was a blow to some organizers because these women had fewer powers, such as no power to arrest, than were available to the few women police officers elsewhere in the country (R. M. Douglas, 1999, p. 72). Natarajan (1996) notes that women play more minor roles in policing in the more traditional societies, and “the willingness of various societies and their criminal justice systems to deploy women as line officers in their police forces varies with the stage of social and economic development in a given society and in relation to the strength of a resistive or supportive culture” (p. 2). A 1961 report from a commission on hiring women into policing in India supported hiring women but only if they were unmarried (Natarajan, 1996). At any rate, keeping in mind the disjuncture about what counts as a woman police officer, Figure 12.2 is an attempt to identify the reported dates that various countries adopted some type of women police officers into the police force (albeit in very stereotypical roles). Importantly, in most countries, women’s advent into policing jobs was similar to the situation in the United States and England in that these were for very gendered assignments with restricted duties (see J. Brown, Hazenberg, & Ormiston, 1999, for an excellent review). The first woman in the United States to hold the title “policewoman” was Alice Stebbins Wells, in Los Angeles, California, in 1910 (Feinman, 1986; Hale & Bennett, 1995; K. Segrave, 1995). Wells was a social worker and theologian who believed she could accomplish more to help women and girls through police work than through volunteer work (Feinman, 1986). When asked why she wanted to enter policing, she answered that women were more suited than men for some aspects of policing, such as comforting and guiding wayward or abused children and preventing the victimization and offending of women and children (Appier, 1998). Although the press negatively characterized Wells as “unfeminine” and “muscular,” she also received some support (Feinman, 1986). When she addressed the International Associate of Chiefs of Police in 1914, she was treated extremely rudely by the audience, including a heckler who yelled, “Call the patrol wagon, another nut gone wrong” (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 15). It is unknown how long she stayed on the force, but it is evident she had retired at least by 1934.

Description

Figure 12.2 ● Comparative: Year of First Woman in Policing Role Sources: Compiled from data reported in the text in aK. Segrave (1995), bHeidensohn (1992), cNatarajan (1996), dShepard (2009), eJ. Brown, Hazenberg, & Ormiston (1999), fStrobl & Sung (2009), gChu & Abdulla (2014).

Soon after becoming the first “policewoman,” Wells engaged in a heavy speaking tour across the United States and Canada and was influential in mobilizing to bring about change in the hiring practices in many places (Appier, 1998). Along with other women police officers, Wells is credited with helping to form the International Association of Policewomen (IAP), a professional organization that lasted from 1915 to 1932. Participation in the IAP and other women’s groups declined along with reformist and temperance groups (e.g., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union), but also as a result of the IAP leadership’s lack of recognition from men’s policing groups (e.g., the male-only International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP]) and the IAP leaders’ inability to anticipate societal shifts by continuing “to accept the view of different roles for men and women” (Schulz, 1995, p. 55). Indeed, their approach helped fuel an

extremely sexist approach to hiring police. For example, the IPA and the IACP endorsed a minimum standard solely required for women police recruits that was adopted by the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Only women recruits had to have graduated from high school (not required of men recruits until the 1960s) and have “at least two years’ practical experience in social casework or its equivalent in technical training and business experience” (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 28). Nine years after Alice Stebbin Wells was hired, the first two full-time African American women police officers were hired weeks apart in 1919, Cora I. Parchment in the NYPD and Georgia A. Robinson (1879–1961) in the LAPD. More is known about Robinson, who was originally appointed as a volunteer matron to the juvenile bureau of LAPD in 1916 (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1917; Schulz, 1995). Prior to police work, she helped organize and was a treasurer of the Los Angeles NAACP. One of the most famous stories about Robinson was that she lost her sight after intervening in a fight between two women in jail. Her loss of sight forced her into retirement, but she reported “no regrets” to Ebony magazine in 1954: “‘I didn’t need my eyes any longer,’ she says. ‘I had seen all there was to see’” (“First Negro Policewoman,” 1954, p. 32). As will be evident later in this chapter, policing remains even more male-dominated than prison/jail work, simply in terms of women’s representation (percentage of employees) on the job. Additionally, some law enforcement jobs are even more masculinized and male-dominated than patrol work. One of these is Special Agents in Charge (SACs), where the first women started in 1972 and quickly reached stagnation (Schulz, 2009, p. 675). Another is SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams, “specialized police units called upon to deal with high-risk situations such as barricaded suspects and hostage incidents” (M. Dodge et al., 2010, p. 219). The LAPD was the first SWAT team originating in 1967 in response to the Watts riots, and was all men (mostly white men) since it started (del Barco, 2008). Nina Acosta, a former police officer who tried out twice in the 1990s for the LAPD SWAT team passed the grueling fitness test and successfully sued the LAPD for gender discrimination when she was denied admittance—she would have been the first woman on a SWAT team (del Barco, 2008). Finally, in the United States, women were not appointed to the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as agents until 1972, and in 1993, almost 10% of the U.S. Secret Service agents were women (K. Segrave, 1995, pp. 111–112). As Schulz (1995) stated in 1995 and it is sadly still true, “exceedingly few women have reached the top of all but small police agencies” (p. 6). Penny E. Harrington served as the first U.S. woman chief police. She was chief of the Portland (Oregon) Police Department from 1984 to 1986. “As of 1994, only two additional women had served as chiefs in major cities, and fewer than 100 of the more than 17,000 municipal law enforcement agencies were led by women” (Schultz, 1995, p. 6). Chief Beverly J. Harvard was the first African American woman chief of police, when she became chief of the Atlanta Police Department 10 years after Harrington, in 1994. In 2004, there were about 200 women chiefs of police and 30 women sheriffs in the United States, about 1% of these law enforcement leadership positions (Schulz, 2004a). Guajardo’s (2016) study of the NYPD from 2000 to 2013 concluded almost no progress in women advancing to command and supervisory positions. Two books have been published on women in leadership positions in policing, one on the United States (Schulz, 2004a) and one on England (Silvestri, 2003). Both document the varying ways these women climbed to the top and the many obstacles they faced, and both discuss the potential for women at the top to change policing. To close this section on “firsts” among women in law enforcement, Officer Gail Adrienne Cobb, a 24-year-old African American, was the first women police officer killed in the line of duty (K. Segrave, 1995, p. 115). She was chasing a robber who shot her with his shotgun.

POLICE OFFICER IDENTITIES Police work is a powerful example of Homan’s (2019) structural sexism, referred to previously in this book. It is difficult to underscore strongly enough how many studies

of varying methods and locations (across the United States and other countries) continue to highlight the extreme masculine hegemonic masculinity in police department cultures and organizations, often as the most defining characteristic (Batton & Wright, 2019; Bergman, Walker, & Jean, 2016; T. C. Brown et al., 2020; Corsianos, 2004, 2009, 2012; Helfgott et al., 2018; Kurtz et al., 2012; Kurtz & Upton, 2018; Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015; Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018; Rabe-Hemp, 2008b; Workman-Stark, 2017; H. H. Yu, 2015, 2017; H. H. Yu & Lee, 2020). In addition to supporting sexism and creating a hostile work environment for women, the characteristics used to describe the dominant masculine policing culture include overemphasizing physical strength, stressing authority, and glorifying violence. A recent national study of U.S. policing concluded, “Masculinity is demonstrated not only through the predominance of males employed, but the culture and, we believe, structures that persist in policing” (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018, p. 314). Most law enforcement officers, regardless of gender (or race/ethnicity), want to be police officers for the same reasons: (1) to help people and/or give back to their communities (Raganella & White, 2004; Schulz, 2004a; White et al., 2010), (2) job security (Raganella & White, 2004; Schulz, 2004a; White et al., 2010), (3) job benefits (Raganella & White, 2004; Schulz, 2004a; White et al., 2010), and (4) simply out of curiosity (Schulz, 2004b). A study of women police chiefs found that many of them began their policing careers after careers in teaching or nursing, careers that help others (Schulz, 2004a). Similar to what we will learn about women’s advancement into the field of law (in the following chapter), women chiefs of police often have/had husbands who were in the police department (Schulz, 2004b). One study found that while both women and men ranked “the opportunity to help people” as a major reason for choosing police work, women officers ranked it higher than men (White et al., 2010). Most helping professions (i.e., teaching and social work) do not pay nearly as well as policing (and fire-fighting) (Schulz, 2004a, p. 18). Angela Workman-Stark (2017, p. 41) and other policing scholars note the strong role of identity and belonging in police work. Given the paramount and overlapping hypermasculine culture and organizational structure in police work, “belonging” to the organization proves more challenging for those who have been historically, and often still are at least in part, excluded from policing. The more intersecting outsider status identities (e.g., gender, race, and sexuality), the greater the likelihood of a difficult adaptation to the police identity. Workman-Stark’s (2017) book Inclusive Policing From the Inside Out argues that far more diverse (e.g., gender, race, and sexuality) policing organizations/departments not only more accurately represent the communities police serve but also will result in much needed changes to the policing culture, structure, and responses. Workman-Stark served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 24 years, including as chief superintendent, went on to get a doctorate, and is now an associate professor of Organizational Behavior at Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada. Workman-Stark constructed five key steps in police identity formation, steps in how people choose policing as a job, even if they do not stay in it, and how their identities are shaped from initial training and continue to be shaped and reinforced throughout their careers through informal and formal codes of behavior. Due to the solidarity of the policing role and the natural suspiciousness toward outsiders, once adopted, the police identity is also strengthened through socialization with other officers and isolation from members of the public. The first step in Workman-Stark’s (2017) police identity formation is discovery, when people first begin thinking about whether the police identity fits them. The second step, try-outs, occurs after acceptance to a law enforcement department, during the police academy training. This is when they first “try on” the police identity. Validation and negotiation, the third step, is individuals’ seeking endorsement from coworkers and supervisors regarding their police identity; this step is perhaps most relevant during the usually one-on-one field training following successful graduation from the police academy. Once receiving such validation, often through their field training officers, police can more fully take on the police officer identity, the fourth step, identity acceptance. Throughout their careers, police navigate the fifth step, continued checks and salience, whether they feel accepted as police officers by their coworkers and supervisors (Workman-Stark, 2017). Throughout this chapter, it is useful to think about these steps and ways the police job is often structured to make

each step more difficult for “outsiders” due to their gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on.

TITLE VII AND OTHER LEGISLATION AND POLICIES Since Title VII, “consent decrees” have been used to increase women’s representation in police work. In 1973, Fanchon Blake, a 25-year police force veteran, with some of her women coworkers, brought a sex discrimination lawsuit (Blake v. City of Los Angeles) against the city, chief, and police department in Los Angeles, two years after the police chief, Ed Davis, announced that women were no longer wanted or needed by the LAPD (Felkenes et al., 1993). Davis reorganized the department not only to stop the hiring of women police officers but also to relegate the existing female officers into receptionist and secretarial roles. The plaintiffs won the suit in an appeals court in 1979, and in 1981, a consent decree was agreed on and signed, requiring better representation of women of all races as well as African American and Latino men (Felkenes et al., 1993, 34). Although the decision resulted in an increase in the hiring of women, it was not up to the required number, and little was done to alleviate the daily hostility the women police officers experienced afterward. S. E. Martin’s (1990) review of policing and gender in the United States found that formal organizational policy changes, such as in seniority rules, the degree of civilianization, criteria for obtaining specialized assignment, and compliance with equal opportunity policies, resulted in an improved integration of women into the policing jobs, serving a greater number of assignments, including in administration. In October 2000 the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 was passed (United Nations, 2000). This resolution emphasizes the necessity of gender awareness, particularly of sexual and intimate partner abuse of citizens and the hiring of women peacekeepers/police in international peacekeeping efforts (Greener et al., 2011; V. Harris & Goldsmith, 2010; Henry, 2012). H. H. Yu (2017), the leading expert on women in federal law enforcement jobs, identified “two major pieces of executive legislation” enacted in 2011 and 2014 that could “inspire a transformational culture change that includes increasing female representation in policing” (p. 209). More specifically: Executive Order 13583 (2011)—Establishing a Coordinated GovernmentWide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce— and Executive Order 13684 (2014)—Establishment of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing—were signed into policy to promote a model of equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion and to identify best practices for increasing trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve (H. H. Yu, 2017, p. 209). Despite H. H. Yu’s (2017) optimism about the potential for the federal 2011 Executive Order 13583 to improve women federal law enforcement officers’ sexist work environments, when she compared data on women federal law enforcement officers collected in 2011 and again in 2015, she found the occupational barriers (e.g., work culture, lack of high-ranking women role models, gender discrimination, etc.) remained as bad, or were even worse. It is vital to remember that laws and policies are significant in making changes in women’s representation (i.e., Title VII), and to a lesser degree, perhaps, job experiences (i.e., sexual harassment laws/policies). The actual agencies, in this case law enforcement departments, can provide the leadership to comply with these laws and policies and do so with professionalism, transparency, and a general commitment to fairness in hiring, promotions, and employee treatment. And this will also improve citizen–police relations. Encouragingly, when law enforcement agencies target hiring women and people of Color, they are usually successful (Reaves, 2012).

RESISTANCE TO WOMEN IN POLICING

“In consideration of the hypermasculine culture and structure of police work, it is perhaps not surprising that women working in law enforcement often experience a hostile work environment and resistance from coworkers” (Batton & Wright, 2019, p. 299). Mangai Natarajan (2001, p. 212) proposes four reasons for the slow integration of women into police forces: (1) prejudice by male officers who view women as unable to perform the job, (2) societal attitudes that women are unable to police, (3) inherent physical differences between women and men, and (4) a lack of women who find the job of policing compatible with personal goals of raising a family. Feminists advocating for women’s rights and abilities to be police officers would dispute the last two reasons, claiming there are many strong and physically capable women and many women who currently balance a policing career with raising a family. Or, stated alternatively, neither the desire nor ability to police is biological. Thus, the first two reasons are likely the best explanations for women’s low representation in even desiring policing (recruitment) and, once there, wanting to stay (retention) if they are discriminated against. Legislation supporting women’s rights to equal employment cannot guarantee their acceptance by coworkers, clients, or the general public (Allison Morris, 1987, p. 145). For example, positive research evaluations of women police officers on patrol (reported in the last section) did not shelter them from considerable hostility from their fellow officers (Balkin, 1988; Belknap & Shelley, 1993; Bloch & Anderson, 1974; Christopher, 1991; Gratch, 1995; Heidensohn, 1992; Jacobs, 1987; Marshall, 1973; C. A. Martin, 1983; S. E. Martin, 1980, 1990, 1994; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Poole & Pogrebin, 1988; Pope & Pope, 1986; Remmington, 1983; Rivlin, 1981; K. Segrave, 1995; L. J. Sherman, 1973; Timmins & Hainsworth, 1989; Wexler & Logan, 1983). Similar to research on the first women guards allowed to work in men’s prisons following Title VII, research on the first significant waves of women hired onto police patrol after Title VII found that many of the men police viewed their jobs as requiring heightened masculinity and thus were confused and threatened when they saw women capably performing police work (Balkin, 1988; Gross, 1984; S. E. Martin, 1980; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; L. J. Sherman, 1973; Wexler & Logan, 1983). When examining women officers’ formal evaluations on the job, there is evidence that some sex/gender discrimination starts in the police training academy, where all new recruits learn how to be officers (Harrington & Lonsway, 2004). An analysis of 1990 to 1999 LAPD data found that women (19%) were twice as likely as men (9%) to be fired from or choose to leave the academy (Harrington & Lonsway, 2004). Schulze (2012) conducted a compelling study of whether and, if so, how various police departments “gendered” their police training physical competence fitness tests, in theory, to make them less physically demanding for women recruits. She found that “the standards set by many law enforcement academies are not guided by any consideration of their potential gendered outcomes, which includes the continuation of negative interactions between men and women police officers” (Schulze, 2012, p. 102). After the police training academy, the next step is field training. Here successful training academy graduates are assigned to work with field training officers (FTOs) who are responsible for on-the-job training and evaluating the new officers’ performance before they become sworn officers. Workman-Stark’s (2017) fourth step to a police identity (discussed earlier in this chapter), identity acceptance, occurs during field training. Given that police departments are usually at least 85% men, and the more seasoned and supervisory officers are even more likely to be men, it is not surprising that the vast majority of FTOs are men. Some research found that FTOs rate women trainees more harshly than similarly competent men trainees (Deaux & Taynor, 1973; Pelkey & DeGrange, 1996). One study reported male FTOs used their position of authority to coerce sex from the women they were training by threatening them with unfavorable evaluations if they do not comply (Harrington & Lonsway, 2004). This was clearly established as rape in Chapter 9. Whether FTO evaluations are gendered by known or unknown practices and beliefs of these evaluators, bias in evaluations at this point in a new officer’s career could have serious implications. The surprisingly little research on gender and field training indicates it can be very gendered/sexist.

One study found women are more likely than men police to report that they are “underestimated because of their physical status and to perceive gender bias in the department” (Stichman et al., 2010, p. 637). In another study 8 out of 10 women officers “reported that they felt that they had to work harder than the male officers” (Archbold & Schulz, 2008, p. 67). Both interview (M. Dodge et al., 2010) and survey (M. Dodge, Valcore, & Gomez, 2011) data indicate that men on SWAT teams report tepid supportive of women becoming SWAT team members—they worry whether women have sufficient strength and skills (M. Dodge et al., 2010, 2011) and whether women “would negatively affect their unit’s level of cohesion and camaraderie” (M. Dodge et al., 2010, p. 233). A study comparing women officers with police chiefs in Pennsylvania found the officers (51%) were about 4 times as likely as the chiefs (13%) to believe that a reason threatening the retention of women officers is that the police academy is male-dominated and not woman-friendly (G. Cordner & Cordner, 2011). Women officers (73%) were also more likely than police chiefs (45%) to report that the police agencies are male-dominated and not woman-friendly (G. Cordner & Cordner, 2011).

SEXUAL HARASSMENT Considerable past and recent research indicates sexual harassment is a significant problem for women police (Bartol et al., 1992; T. C. Brown et al., 2020; Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009; Cho, 1997; de Haas et al., 2009; Gratch, 1995; Greene, 1997; Hassell & Brandl, 2009; Helfgott et al., 2018; Lonsway & Alipio, 2008; S. E. Martin, 1980; Morash & Haarr, 1995; Anne Morris, 1996; Poole & Pogrebin, 1988; Rabe-Hemp, 2008b; Rosenberg et al., 1993; H. H. Yu, 2018; H. H. Yu & Lee, 2020). In one such study 91% of women officers reported at least one incident of sexual harassment by a man in their department in the prior two years, including unwelcome touching (41%), unwanted attempts to stroke/fondle (17%), treated badly for sexual noncooperation (7%), sexual bribery (6%), and being treated badly for refusing sex (3%) (Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009). Women who worked in departments with more men, who did not know there was an organizational policy prohibiting sexual harassment, and/or who were concerned about the negative social reactions reporting these violations would bring were less likely to respond assertively to their sexual harassment victimizations (Chaiyavej & Morash, 2009). Lonsway and her colleagues have provided some of the most chilling accounts of women’s continued struggles sexual harassment and discrimination in policing, both in the extreme violations and in the responses by their departments ( Lonsway & Alipio, 2008; Lonsway, Paynich, & Hall, 2013). One patrol officer filing a suit reported: I was harassed, accused of ingesting cocaine and called a stupid fucking incompetent bitch in the open bay in front of the other detectives on several occasions…. After I was assaulted by an officer during an armed search warrant, I realized how much danger I was in. I could not feel safe with him and some of the other detectives in the unit…. My supervisors knew of the harassment and refused to intervene. (Lonsway & Alipio 2008, p. 84). Regarding backlashes to women police reporting outrageous sexual harassment by colleagues and supervisors, Lonsway and colleagues (2013) found that a particularly dangerous retaliation women reported was delayed or denied backup in emergency situations, which could go on for years after a woman had reported and the case was closed. A study on both guards and police found that men police are more likely than men guards, women guards, and women police to believe that sexual harassment is no longer a problem in their workplace (Harrison, 2012). And as expected, women police who perceive sexual harassment as a current problem in police department reported lower job satisfaction (Harrison, 2012). A more recent study found that while sexual harassment was still prevalent, the women police distinguished between sexual teasing and sexual harassment (T. C. Brown et al., 2020). Sexual teasing was perceived as harmless, friendly joking between parties who respect each other. Sexual harassment was perceived as malicious, one-sided, committed by a person

with more power, and could include attempts to gain sex or even be physical. Similar results were reported from a much larger and multimethod study of both women and men police, which found that although there were high levels of experiencing victimization, including men as “victims,” most of the women and men did not see these “victimizations” as problematic or worth reporting (Lonsway et al., 2013). Recall in the chapters on gender-based abuse (GBA) that most of these victims do not want the “victim” label. This feeling is likely enhanced among women in policing (Lonsway et al., 2013). Women, however, still reported significantly more sexual harassment than men, with the widest gender gaps for the most serious sexual harassment and fear about reporting the serious sexual harassment (Lonsway et al., 2013).

GENDER AND STRESS Similar to studies on women working as guards in men’s prisons, the first studies of women on patrol report higher stress levels for women than for men in these professions (C. A. Martin, 1983; Rivlin, 1981; Wertsch, 1998; Wexler & Logan, 1983) and a more recent study does as well (Yoo & Franke, 2011). As might be expected, women police officers’ job stress and job satisfaction are related to the degree of hostility (including sexual harassment) emanating from male coworkers and supervisors (Bartol et al., 1992; J. M. Brown, 1998; de Guzman & Frank, 2004; Gratch, 1995; Harrison, 2012; S. E. Martin, 1980; Morash & Haarr, 1995), woman’s token status (Bartol et al., 1992; Wertsch, 1998), and the constant pressure to prove competence (C. A. Martin, 1983; Rivlin, 1981; Timmins & Hainsworth, 1989; Wexler & Logan, 1983). Although not specifically identified as a stressor, a recent study comparing police chiefs’ and woman officers’ reasons for low retention of women officers found the women officers (66%) were more likely than the chiefs (48%) to view the lack of family-friendly policies on pregnancy and child care as a reason for women’s low retention in police departments (G. Cordner & Cordner, 2011). Similar to women working in prisons and jails, women in policing are generally pessimistic about the likelihood of their own and other women’s advancements and promotions (Harrington & Lonsway, 2004; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Poole & Pogrebin, 1988). This is particularly acute for African American women (M. Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Harrington & Lonsway, 2004; S. E. Martin, 1994; Pogrebin, Dodge, & Chatman, 2000; Townsey, 1982a), other women of Color, and lesbians (Harrington & Lonsway, 2004). Encouragingly, some studies report little to no gender differences in police officers’ stress levels (Bartol et al., 1992; Carlan & McMullan, 2009; Morash & Haarr, 1995). One such study concluded that “policewomen are mentally tough and resilient, and hence quite capable of modulating the demands of police careers” (Carlan & McMullan, 2009, p. 60). Another study found that for both genders, the greatest stressor is their sense of a lack of influence over day-to-day operations, or how “policing gets done” (Morash & Haarr, 1995, p. 127). A comparison of gender differences within races found no significant differences among White and among Latinx police officers; however, African American women reported significantly greater stress than did African American men (Morash & Haarr, 1995). A study of police officers’ job satisfaction after six years on the street found that Latinx officers reported the highest job satisfaction and white men reported the lowest (White et al., 2010). However, Luo, Schleifer, and Hill’s (2019) national study revealed that among U.S. police officers, women make an average of 16% less than men despite these being public-sector jobs (i.e., jobs funded by taxes, such as police, firefighters, and teachers) with assumed pay discrimination protections.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JOB PERFORMANCE Although there has been a long-standing concern, particularly by men in law enforcement, as to whether women are physically strong enough to be police (Balkin, 1988; Koenig, 1978; Schulze, 2012; Townsey, 1982b), the reality is that policing is “routine, quite boring and largely concerned with providing a public service, rather than fighting crime” (Dick & Cassell, 2004, p. 67). Significantly, masculinity is portrayed as vital to the job, and in many departments, women are still placed in gendered “feminine” roles. For example, Kurtz and colleagues (2012) drew on

gendered organizational logic to reveal subtle interactions and belief systems that extend the devalued matron role from a hundred years ago. Women “officers are expected to care for children, delinquents, and female victims regardless of personal preference or individual skills, and institutional practices tend to maintain women officers in the devalued position historically held by police matrons” (p. 239). Even a study of advertisements in a professional police magazine found the women portrayed as “caretakers and nurturers” (Rabe-Hemp & Beichner, 2011, p. 63), and a study of the reality television show of women police, Female Forces, documented an avoidance to show the women as crime fighters, but instead showed overwhelmingly sexist depictions of their “femininity, domestication, and beauty,” and again, as “caretakers and nurturers” (Rabe-Hemp, 2011, p. 132). Most troubling, a recent extensive research review found that “a masculine police culture affects men officers’ belief in negative stereotypes regarding women officers” (Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015, p. 77). Mostly in the 1970s, with the dramatic increase in hiring women on police patrol following Title VII, there was also a boon of studies to determine how well women do the job of policing, many of which were funded by the now defunct Police Foundation. For the most part, these studies reported that the women were as capable as men (H. W. Bartlett & Rosenblum, 1977; Bartol et al., 1992; Bloch & Anderson, 1974; Grennan, 1987; L. J. Sherman, 1975; Sichel et al., 1978). This is particularly impressive given a study of these evaluations of women on patrol, which found that the studies themselves were sexist, valuing typically masculine traits and devaluing stereotypically women’s gender traits—most of which were not shown to be meaningfully related to policing (Morash & Greene, 1986). Indeed, the bar for how well women did as patrol officers was to simply compare them to the assumed ideal patrol officers: men (Morash & Greene, 1986). Yet, even with these sexist presuppositions, women on patrol measured up quite well. Some of these early evaluations also reported that women as a group brought assets to policing that are less common among men police, such as better relations with citizens (Bloch & Anderson, 1974; Marshall, 1973; Sichel et al., 1978), a greater ability and/or willingness to de-escalate potentially violent situations (Bell, 1982; Gates, 1976; Grennan, 1987), empathy for survivors of rape and intimate partner abuse (IPA), and a broader and more creative outlook on policing (Feinman, 1986; Homant & Kennedy, 1985; Kennedy & Homant, 1983; B. R. Price, 1974). Policing gendered response research since 1990 almost routinely reaffirms the quartercentury post–Title VII (1970s and 1980s) findings: Overall, compared to men, women officers use less excessive force, use less coercive tactics, use less verbally abusive language, are more likely to de-escalate potentially violent situations, respond better to GBA victims, have fewer police misconduct reports and other citizen complaints, and thus tend to have better relationships with citizens (Bazley et al., 2007, 2007; Belknap & Shelley, 1993; Bergman et al., 2016; Felkenes et al., 1990; C. Harris, 2011; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Ouellet et al., 2019; Rabe-Hemp, 2008a; Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2007; Sun, 2007; Sun et al., 2008). Of course, there are some exceptions to this. First, we should not essentialize police officers’ responses based on their gender. Not all women law enforcement officers have all the previously listed positive traits, and not all men law enforcement officers have the opposing negative traits. There are some women officers who use unnecessary force, are coercive, respond poorly to GBA victims, and so on; just as there are some men officers who never use excessive force, are never coercive, and are very professional and sensitive when responding to GBA victims. Second, findings on gendered policing are not uniform. Some studies find no gender difference in some of the police responses, and some find women’s higher rates of the more troubling traits. For example, some research indicates no gender differences in using comforting or supportive behaviors with citizens (Dejong, 2004; Rabe-Hemp, 2008a). Paoline and Terrill (2004) reported no gender differences in police verbal or physical coercion or force. Bergman and colleagues (2016), however, contextualized and then discounted Paoline and Terrill’s (2004) findings by controlling for the number of women and men officers. A study of detectives’ decision-making in rape cases in a midwestern city found women detectives were less likely than men detectives to arrest suspects (Alderden & Ullman, 2012). On the other hand, women police may be rated more negatively by coworkers, administrators, supervisors,

victims, offenders, and onlookers for employing similar levels of compassion and support shown by men police, due to an expectation that women are supposed to be more nurturing than men (Grant, 2000). And the informal monitoring of women police officers’ responses may be most acute when responding to GBA offenses. Some research reports that among police, women tend to arrest less often than men (Rabe-Hemp, 2008a). However, Novak et al. (2011), in a large observational study in police Cincinnati, Ohio, found that officer gender “had little impact on the decisions to arrest” except that women police were “more likely to arrest when they were observed by their supervisors, yet less likely to arrest in the presence of peers” (p. 566). Women police were also more likely than men police to arrest men, African Americans, and citizens who were verbally hostile (p. 579). In this study, compared to men, women officers were also “more concerned about the quantity of evidence” (p. 578). A study of Boston police found no gender differences in the officers’ likelihood of issuing traffic tickets (Lundman, 2009). Given that one of the reasons historically that women were hired into policing was to respond to victimized women and girls, and ideally, victims of gender-based violence should be able to expect more than solely men police, it is useful to examine gender comparisons of police responses to GBA. Sun’s (2007) study of police responses to domestic violence (in Florida and Indiana) found women officers “do both ‘difference’ and ‘sameness’” in responding to these calls (p. 591). Women were more likely than men to initiate assistance to citizens, but there were no gender differences in the amount of force or the amount of coercion used to control the specific cases. Notably, women were more likely to take control actions when citizens were irrational, and men were more likely than women to use control when citizens were disrespectful or requested police control (Sun, 2007). An extensive research review found the masculinist culture of policing impacts men officers’ elevated adherence to IPA stereotypes and troubling responses to IPA (Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015, p. 77). A recent Denver, Colorado, policing study found that there were no gender differences in officers’ belief that IPA “takes too much time and effort,” but women were more supportive (than men) officers of pro-arrest policies (McPhedran et al., 2017, p. 223). A U.S. study found that increases in women’s representation (percentage) in policing increases the likelihood of victims of violence to report to the police, and especially IPA survivors, and decreases both non-fatal IPA and intimate partner homicides (A. R. Miller & Segal, 2019). Finally, S. L. Miller’s (1999) ethnography of a community policing program found that women officers focused on IPA programs, mentoring, and school programs for youths and parents, while the men officers’ programs focused on sports and crime-fighting. Meir and colleagues’ (2006) study using UCR and other data from the 60 largest U.S. metropolitan counties over eight years found that the greater the percentage of women on a police force, the greater the number of sexual assault reports and sexual assault arrests. Possible interpretations of these findings include that (1) the higher the percentage of women police, the more rape victims are willing to contact the police and be believed and taken seriously; (2) the higher the percentage of women police, the more men police are sensitized to sexual abuse; (3) among police, women give more attention and attribute more seriousness to rape victims and rape cases than men police; and (4) rape victims might be more cooperative with women than men police and thus provide better evidence allowing an arrest (Meir et al., 2006). Whereas Morabito, Pattavina, and Williams’s (2017) large study, using 2007 and 2008 NIBRS and LEMAS data, found the representation of women officers was unrelated to the likelihood of arrests in sexual assault complaints, Schuck’s (2018) study using LEMAS data from 1997 to 2013 found women’s representation increased the likelihood of arrests, but also with sexual assault survivors reporting their victimizations to the police. The relationship between women’s representation and both sexual assault victim reporting and police clearance is even stronger when (1) the officers are represented by a police union/collective bargaining, and (2) there are more resources available to victims. The relationships between women’s representation and police clearance, but not victim reporting, is even stronger when there is a community policing program in place. Rich and Seffrin’s (2014) smaller study, but still with an impressive sample and designed to specifically assess gender differences in responding to sexual assault

cases, provides more direct findings that help interpret these more aggregate UCR and LEMAS studies. They surveyed 429 police officers and found that relative to men officers, women police are more likely to (1) collaborate with victim advocates (including more in person time and having the victim advocate present during their victim interviews), (2) take more sexual assault training (and to find it more useful than the male officers, (3) agree that fellow officers make negative comments about rape victims, and (4) perceive other officers’ negative comments about rape victims as hostile (Rich & Seffrin, 2014). Other findings included that women officers who reported other officers’ negative rape victim statements were more likely to work with victim advocates and to take sexual assault trainings, which the authors suggest may be a way they negotiate and feel less isolated at work. Notably, women and men officers were equally likely to say that they would “encourage a loved one to report a rape” (Rich & Seffrin, 2014, p. 152). Rich and Seffrin’s findings also indicate why some women police may feel that, to be accepted by their coworkers, they need to present as someone who thinks negative rape victim comments are not hostile and also not “overreact” with arrest in rape cases (going back to Workman-Stark’s navigating the police identity formation). The question, as Barbara R. Price (1989) pointed out, is how much can women change policing, or does policing change women (to be like men police), especially when women are hired in such tokenized numbers? Alternatively stated, is it so hazardous to fight the status quo that women become the status quo (i.e., practice policing by being like men police)? Or do women really do the job differently than men? If there were no gender discrimination and sexual harassment, would women do the job differently? Similarly, Schulz (2004b) addresses a debate among feminist criminologists: Should the goal be for gender-neutral policing, where women and men perform the job similarly (i.e., women adapt to men’s policing styles), or should the goal be to allow gendered policing, where women and men perform the job differently? Or perhaps the goal should be commensurate with the women guards in Zimmer’s (1986) study who believed they did the job better than men and the goal should be for men to police more like women police. To some degree this is tonguein-cheek, but future research needs to continue to address whether and, if so, how police recruits’ ideals of doing policing are gendered. Gender policing studies increasingly test representative bureaucracy theory, hypothesizing that the greater women’s representation in a police department, the more likely there will be prowoman/feminist police changes, such as whether sexual assault will be reported to the police and whether sexual assaults will result in arrests (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018; Morabito et al., 2017; Oberfield, 2019; Schuck & Rabe-Hemp, 2007; Shjarback & Todak, 2019; H. H. Yu & Lee, 2020).

CLASSIFICATIONS OF WOMEN POLICE OFFICERS The last chapter identified Kanter’s labels of roles the first women working in corporations in the 1970s encountered (i.e., pet, mother, seductress, and iron maiden). Similar to Zimmer’s (1986) classic book on adjustment roles for women working in a men’s prison (i.e., institutional, modified, and inventive) also reported in the last chapter, S. E. Martin (1979) conducted the definitive study of how the first women on police patrol managed these jobs while working with many men who could not comprehend that a woman could work as an equal. Thus, it is probably not surprising that Martin (1979) found a tendency for these pioneer women on patrol to emphasize either the police (POLICEwomen) or the woman (policeWOMEN) aspect of being a police officer. More specifically, Martin’s POLICEwomen emphasized their job status (policing) over their gender (women) status through professionalism, assertiveness, occupational achievement, and departmental loyalty. On the other hand, Martin’s policeWOMEN emphasized their gender (woman) identity over their work (policing) identity, often acquiescing to ascribed gender roles (e.g., “little girl”). Unsurprisingly, they were typically isolated from “real” police work. These role options were a no-win for the women given that the majority of the men police did not appear to value either role (POLICEwomen or policeWOMEN): POLICEwomen were seen as strange women, while policeWOMEN were viewed as incompetent officers. Stated alternatively, these men were threatened by evidence that women could do the job, as well as by evidence that they could not. Zimmer’s (1986) later work, identifying adjustment strategy roles for women working in men’s prisons, compared her

institutional role to Martin’s (1979) POLICEwomen role and her modified role to S. E. Martin’s (1979) policeWOMEN role. (S. E. Martin identified two roles, while Zimmer identified three. Martin did not report any police roles similar to Zimmer’s inventive role.) S. E. Martin (1980) also identified three roles that the men police adopted regarding their views of these first women on patrol: traditionals, moderns, and moderates. Traditionals believed that women police officers do not belong on patrol and if present should be protected and treated as junior partners, moderns were willing to work with women police officers as equals, and moderates were ambivalent (neither supportive nor negative) toward women police. Consistent with other research on token women, among the men police, African Americans were more supportive than the white men of the women police. Jacobs’s (1987) study of women police found that one third of the women did not feel supported by male police officers, while the two thirds who reported feeling close to male police officers expressed being viewed as “mothers,” “sisters,” and “women” but not as police officers (Jacobs 1987). Hunt’s (1984) participant observation research on gender and policing reported that men police frequently “tested” the women officers (including showing them pornography and taking them to topless bars). Hunt reported the male officers in her study tended to simply dichotomize women police officers as “dykes” or “whores.” She learned that the women officers walked a fine line when they attempted to combine elements of both masculinity and femininity in order to gain acceptance. If a woman acts “too feminine,” she is criticized for not being suitable for the job. However, if she acts “too masculine,” she is criticized for not acting like a woman (Garcia, 2003, p. 341). Hunt (1990) reported that men police uncomfortable with women in policing jobs resolved their confusion by placing women into such stereotypical categories as “seductress,” “mother,” or “lesbian.” A later study by S. E. Martin (1994) found that the white men police were often “protective” of the white women officers whom they could reduce to “pets,” “mothers,” and “seductresses,” but when African American women acquiesced to these same roles, they did not receive the benefit of white male officers’ protection and instead were seen as “lazy” (p. 391). S. E. Martin (1994, p. 395), like Hunt (1984), found that many women police officers struggle “to negotiate an identity that allows them to maintain their femininity, succeed as officers, and gain individual acceptance as ‘just me.’” In their attempts to do so, they are often critical of other women officers whom they perceive as role-playing the other extremes by acting either too masculine or too feminine (e.g., “sluts,” “clinging vines,” or making their way around the department on “knee pads”) (S. E. Martin 1994, 395). They perceive these too-masculine or too-feminine women coworkers as confirming stereotypes that “rub off” on all women police, including those who have managed a compromise between masculine and feminine. M. Dodge and Pogrebin’s (2001) study of African American women police found the women reported that most of the white men police had few interactions with African Americans as children, thus as adults viewed them as an unknown entity. This lack of contact combined with the small numbers of African American police and lack of repercussions for doing otherwise appeared to allow or even encourage the white men officers to use racist slurs when referring to citizens. The Black women police gave varying reports on the levels of support from the Black men police. Some of the Black women police reported that some of the Black men officers were deliberately unsupportive of them because of the African American men’s own precarious status in the (racist) department (M. Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001). Finally, the African American women officers viewed themselves as needing less protection from the other (mostly male) officers than the white women needed, and they prided themselves on their ability to do the policing job well (M. Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Pogrebin et al., 2000). Although women are still significantly underrepresented in police work (15%), citizens, coworkers, supervisors, and administrators are far less likely to see women as an anomaly in policing today. Moreover, it is likely that women, like men, are more comfortable with the police job the longer their tenure in this work. Additionally, it is important to not essentialize police behaviors along gender, race/ethnicity, longevity on the job, and other characteristics; recent research indicates that significant

variation in how women “do police work” exists (Derks et al., 2011; Morash & Haarr, 2012; Rabe-Hemp, 2009). For example, one study found that among women working in policing, “queen bees”—women with more longevity in male-dominated jobs who emphasize how they are different from other women—are more likely to have experienced serious gender discrimination on the job than women with similar seniority who are not queen bees (Derks et al., 2011). Another study found variation in women police, including how they “do gender” and distinguish themselves from men police (Rabe-Hemp, 2009). In fact, there was a combination of both actively resisting and adopting gender norms of policing and femininity, allowing them to work in this male-dominated occupation (Rabe-Hemp, 2009). Natarajan (2001, p. 213) collected data from hundreds of women officers during three time periods (1988, 1994, 2000) and from a variety of police departments (all-women, sex/gender integrated, experienced professional women officers, and new-recruit women) in Tamil Nadu, India, as well as 1988 data on women officers in New Jersey in the United States. Two data collection points were from all-women units implemented in Tamil Nadu in the early 1990s to provide an entirely female force to respond primarily to women victims of male violence. Her questionnaire included items assessing the respondents’ preferred roles for women officers: traditional (women officers’ jobs are different from men officers’ jobs, typically restricted to responding to women and children); modified (women take on similar duties as men, except they are restricted if violence is likely); and integrated (women and men have identical policing responsibilities). Natarajan’s first finding was that women in the allwomen units were more likely in 2000 than in 1994 to desire to be in integrated departments. She speculates that this might be due to disenchantment with the units, “but it may also be a result of improved confidence gained as a result of working successfully in the [all-woman] units” (Natarajan, 2001, p. 228). Second, new recruits were more likely than the more experienced/older women officers and the women in the all-woman units to prefer an integrated role. Third, despite these changes indicating Indian women’s desires for more integrated policing roles, the new recruits in India in 2002 (76%) were significantly less likely than the new recruits in New Jersey in 1988 (93%) to prefer an integrated role. Natarajan concludes that J. Brown’s (1997) integration model may not be limited to Global North democracies but that integration of women into policing roles equal to men’s in traditional countries is likely slower and subject to more reversals than in Global North countries.

WOMEN’S REPRESENTATION IN POLICING “Before the 1970s, nearly all police officers in the United States were white men” (S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996, p. 48). The first two women in the United States assigned to patrol duty—“the backbone of policing” and the beginning of non-gendered policing roles for women—occurred in 1968 (S. E. Martin, 1980, p. 48). In 1971, there were only seven women police on patrol in the United States (Gates, 1976). Like U.S. women’s entry into prison/jail jobs, Title VII did not create women police officers’ desire for equality but rather provided legal support for changes that began in the 1950s (Schulz, 1993). With the implementation of Title VII, the number of women officers on patrol exploded. Yet, as in prison/jail work, women are still at token status in U.S. police work. In the United States, women constituted 1.4% of all police officers in 1971, 5.0% in 1980, 7.5% in 1987, 8.6% in 1990, 10.6% in 2000, and 11.9% in 2007 (G. Cordner & Cordner, 2011; Reaves, 2010). So, while women’s representation in law enforcement increased steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, it has stagnated since 2000, “and women continue to be underrepresented” (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018, p. 313). Most of the research on U.S. trends in policing, including most of what is cited in this chapter, uses the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) data. Unfortunately, LEMAS data are only collected every three years and 2016 was the most recently available data for this book. Furthermore, the LEMAS 2016 data are available on local police (Hyland & Davis, 2019) and sheriffs’ offices (Brooks, 2019), which constitute 67.8% and 24.7%, respectively, of full-time, sworn officers, leaving 8.6% of women in law enforcement (state and federal officers) for which there were no available data. Table 12.1 summarizes some of the data from these two reports.

Consistent with previous U.S. data (Reaves & Hickman, 2004), in 2016, women’s representation was higher in local police than sheriffs’ departments, 12.3% and 13.6%, respectively. If we weight these representations (68% local police officers and 25% sheriffs are women), then collectively, 12.6% of full-time U.S. sworn officers in 2016 were women.2 Although women’s representation (percentage) in law enforcement increased from 1.4% in 1971 to 10.6% in 2000, it only increased by another 2.0% from 2000 to 2016. Moreover, the 2016 12.6% qualifies as token status according to Kanter’s (1977b) designation of tokenism when women’s representation is less than 15%. The gender by race/ethnicity of officers presented in Table 12.1 indicates far more racial diversity among women than men officers, and especially in local police departments compared to sheriff offices. 2 Other than the 8.6% of all law enforcement women who are state and federal officers, for which there were no available data at the time of writing this book. Shjarback and Todak’s (2019) recent analysis of 2013 LEMAS data concluded that “women in supervisory and management roles remain rare, and … the numbers have not changed much for decades” (p. 141). Similarly, the 2016 LEMAS data in Table 12.1 indicate that women’s representation in law enforcement leadership, whether in local police or a sheriffs’ department, become sequentially worse while moving up in rank from sergeant to intermediate supervisor to chief/sheriff. Or, as J. Brown (2016, p. 234) so creatively describes, the representation of women in law enforcement in the United States and the United Kingdom are like a Christmas tree, “increasingly less likely to have tinsel on their shoulders” the higher the tree/rank (see Table 12.1).

Recruitment and Retention Previous sections documented one of the reasons that women still have such low representation in policing is that it is still considered by far too many as a “man’s job.” Curiously, white women in particular (3 times), but also African American women (2 time) and Latinx women (2 times) are far overrepresented as police on prime-time crime television shows than they are in actual policing (Evans & Davies, 2014). This may be useful if the public becomes accustomed to seeing women police (of course, it matters how they are portrayed), but also given research consistent with WorkmanStark’s (2017) first step in police identity formation earlier in this chapter. More specifically, one study found television shows with women police were what first inspired some girls/women to become police: “Without these television shows, it is possible that some of these women would have picked a different career field and not become police officers” (Morabito & Shelley, 2018, p. 287). Table 12.1 ● 2016 U.S. Full-Time Sworn Law Enforcement (Police and Sheriff) Officers by Gender, Race and Ethnicity, and Leadership Positiona

Local Police Departments

Sheriff Departments

67% of Officers

25% of Officers

(N = 468,000)

(N = 173,000)

Women

Men

Women Men

87.7%

13.6%

2016 Data 2016

12.3%

86.4%

Local Police Departments

Sheriff Departments

67% of Officers

25% of Officers

(N = 468,000)

(N = 173,000)

Women

Men

Women Men

White

56.9%

73.5%

62.5%

78.0%

Latinx

17.1%

11.9%

14.0%

10.0%

African American/Black

22.0%

9.9%

19.1%

7.9%

Asian American, HPI, AI/AN, or biracial or multiracialb

3.3%

3.7%

2.2%

2.4%

Unknown race/ethnicity

0.8%

1.0%

2.2%

1.7%

Sergeant/First-Line Supervisor

9.7%

90.3%

12.3%

87.7%

Intermediate Supervisor

7.5%

92.5%

6.7%

93.3%

Chief/Sheriff

2.9%

97.1%

0.9%

99.1%

Ethnicity and Raceb

Leadership Positions

1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013 Data Year 1997

10.0%

90.0%

15.6%

84.4%

2000

10.6%

89.4%

12.5%

87.5%

2003

11.3%

88.7%

12.9%

87.1%

Local Police Departments

Sheriff Departments

67% of Officers

25% of Officers

(N = 468,000)

(N = 173,000)

Women

Women Men

Men

12.1%

2007

11.9%

88.1%

2013

12.2%

87.8%

87.9% 13.8%

86.2%

a

These were the most recent available data at the time of writing this edition of this book. Unfortunately, race/ethnicity was not broken down by gender and race for the leadership positions. b Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, Other Pacific Islanders (HPI), American Indians, Alaska Natives (AI/AN), or persons of two or more races. Sources: Data are directly from or were calculated from Hyland and Davis (2019) and Brooks (2019), who used Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) data. Note: The total numbers (N) under the headings Local Police Departments and Local Sheriff Departments are for 2016; the reports did not give the total numbers for 1997–2013.

In addition to women’s higher representation in sheriff than local police departments (Brooks, 2019; Hyland & Davis, 2019; Reaves & Hickman, 2004), research consistently shows women’s law enforcement representation is better in larger than smaller departments (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018; Morabito & Shelley, 2015; Reaves & Hickman, 2004). Women’s representation has also been found to increase when departments have higher representation of Black officers (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018), minimum education requirements (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018; Morabito & Shelley, 2015), organizational benevolence (incentive pay such as tuition reimbursement, bilingual ability, hazardous duty pay) (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018), civilian review boards (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018), greater vertical differentiation layers of bureaucracy within a department) (Morabito & Shelley, 2015), higher percentages of citizens of Color (Morabito & Shelley, 2015), less citizen turnover/mobility (Morabito & Shelley, 2015), higher representation of women on the city council (Warner et al., 1989), higher representation of civilian sworn staff (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018), and fewer tasks for which a department is responsible (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018). One study found departments in the Midwest had higher representation of women police (Morabito & Shelley, 2015), and another found women’s police representation is lower when departments are facing budget problems (Warner et al., 1989). Some characteristics have mixed findings. One study found collective bargaining (being unionized) assisted women’s representation (Morabito & Shelley, 2015), while another found the opposite (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018). One study found having community-policing components in a department increased their representation of

women police (Matusiak & Matusiak, 2018), but another found that while the greater representation of women in a department increased the likelihood of the implementation of community policing, community policing did not result in an increase in women’s representation (Schuck, 2017). Although their study is older than most cited thus far, Schrodel and colleagues’ (1996) analysis of the racial and gender makeup of law enforcement officers in southern California reported that different factors are related to who is hired. Notably, while similar factors resulted in hiring both African American women and African American men, there were gender differences among the hiring of White officers and among the hiring of Latinx officers. First, a higher percentage of African Americans in a jurisdiction increases the likelihood of both African American women and African American men being hired as officers. Second, when the police chief is a person of Color, there is a greater likelihood for both African American women and African American men to be hired. Third, Affirmative Action policies increased the likelihood of hiring African American women but not African American men. Fourth, the greater the Latinx population, the greater the likelihood of Latinx men but not Latinx women being hired onto the police department. Fifth, when the police chief was a person of Color, this increased the likelihood of Latinx men but not Latinx women hired. Sixth, the higher the violent crime rate, the less likely Latino men would be hired, but this variable was unrelated to the hiring of Latina women. Seventh, the greater the unemployment rate, the greater the likelihood of Latina women but not Latino men being hired. Eighth, Affirmative Action policies increased the likelihood of Latinx women but not Latinx men being hired. Ninth, the greater the White population, the greater the likelihood of white women, but not white men, being hired. Tenth, a police chief of Color decreased the likelihood of hiring white women but had no effect on hiring white men. And finally, the higher the unemployment and the presence of Affirmative Action policies, the less white men were represented, with no effect on white women. In sum, a range of factors influenced the likelihood of the hiring of various racial–gender groups (Schroedel et al., 1996). Both having other women in one’s academy/recruitment class and having a woman FTO (field training officer) improve women’s retention in policing (Morabito & Shelley, 2018; Workman-Stark, 2017). H. H. Yu and Lee’s (2020) large study of women U.S. federal law enforcement jobs focused on the role of an inclusive organizational culture, defined as treating women equitably and fairly and overall “women-friendly.” Remarkably, although inclusive organization cultures increased women’s satisfaction on the job, including less gender discrimination and sexual harassment, they were no more likely to report these violations than women in more woman-unfriendly organizational cultures. A surprisingly limited amount of research addresses gender differences in law enforcement members’ pay. Luo and colleagues’ (2019) almost three-decade (1990– 2018) U.S. income analysis found that regardless of gender, police “earn considerably more than [most] employed individuals within the general population” (p. 499). Over this time, however, women made, on average, 16% less than men in policing (even after controlling for years of experience and education). Yet, police work is still an even better advantage among women workers (than men workers as a whole), whose pay is even more depressed in non-policing jobs than men’s pay is (Luo et al., 2019). Thus, similar to what C. Fisher (2019) reported in the previous chapter about the occupational opportunity prison/jail work provides for women (she focused on African American women in New York City), policing, while maintaining a significant gender disparity in pay, still offers a significant occupational income among women. In addition to enforcing a “same work, same pay” standard of gender equity, the retention of women in policing would likely improve with nondiscriminatory pay.

Promotion Recall Workman-Stark’s (2017) final and fifth stop in women’s police identity formation, continued checks and salience, their career-long navigation to feel accepted as a police officer by their coworkers and supervisors. This step is very salient as women “navigate the gendered hierarchy to access the formal (e.g., training) and informal opportunities (e.g., mentorship) that are necessary to earn

promotion, advancement, and status” (Workman-Stark, 2017, p. 288). In addition to denying women these opportunities, they are often “hidden” from them. One police study found women are less concerned about and less likely to aspire to promotion within the department than men (Gau et al., 2013), but research on women’s promotion prospects, experiences, and desires in policing reveals a complex confluence of factors. One study found that promotional barriers in the department among women police include that it would be too difficult on their families, they lacked the confidence in their level of police experience, and they were part of a “cop couple” (i.e., married to or in relationship with another police officer) (Archbold & Hassell, 2009). The authors refer to this as the “marriage tax” for women police, and that over half in their study were married to another police officer working in their same agency. The “marriage tax” was problematic because if one member of the couple were promoted, it would likely make being on the same shift more challenging. But some women police officers married to men police officers reported that their husbands viewed their own police jobs as “careers” and their wives’ police jobs as “hobbies” (Archbold & Hassell, 2009, p. 63). In one recent study, women police said their promotion aspirations were stigmatized and devalued, while their coworker men’s aspirations were taken for what they were, legitimate (T. C. Brown et al., 2020). Furthermore, even when some women believe they are worthy of promotion they hold concerns that it will be perceived as an Affirmative Action decision, which will further be perceived as they are not deserving and will not be effective leaders (Archbold & Schulz, 2008; T. C. Brown et al., 2020). This finding was also in the previous chapter among women guards. Another recent study found that women promoted within policing reported “family support, a woman chief or role model, mentorship, and previous connections” as the necessary “positive conditions” (Morabito & Shelley, 2018, p. 298). Having mentorship and encouragement to apply for promotions from senior men in their departments, however, was also important for these women. Sadly 4 of the 47 women in this study had to resort to lawsuits for “unfair treatment or unlawful practices,” but on the brighter side, they remained in their departments to see resolution (Morabito & Shelley, 2018, p. 300). Recent LEMAS analyses indicate that similar to structural characteristics increasing the overall representation of women in law enforcement, women in both sergeant and mid-level leadership positions were more likely working in larger agencies, agencies with community policing, agencies that required at least an associate’s college degree, and agencies that allowed collective bargaining (but this was not the case for women chiefs of police or sheriffs). Notably, agencies in the South were more likely than those in the Northeast or Midwest to have women in mid-level supervisory positions (Shjarback & Todak, 2019). H. H. Yu’s (2017) assessment of the impact of federal 2011 Executive Order 13583 on women federal law enforcement officers’ perceptions of women’s promotions found they were rated even worse after the order.

THE INTERSECTION OF RACISM AND SEXUAL IDENTITY WITH GENDER AND SEXISM Racism As expected, the accounts of women of Color’s employment experiences in policing suggest that the effects of racism and sexism are more than cumulative (Banks, 1997; Cho, 1997; Christopher, 1991; Greene, 1997; Haarr & Morash, 1999; Hassell & Brandl, 2009; S. E. Martin, 1994; Moran, 1991; Schroedel et al., 1996; Stichman et al., 2010; Townsey, 1982a). S. E. Martin (1994, 2004) conducted intensive interviews with police officers in an attempt to better understand the intersection of racism with sexism and some of the unique experiences of African American women police. She found that although white women reported more gender discrimination than African American women officers, the African American women still reported serious levels of gender discrimination. Moreover, although many of the African American women reported experiencing both sexism and racism, (1) they reported experiencing racism at higher levels than they reported experiencing sexism, and (2) they reported higher levels of experiencing racism than the African American male officers reported. This study also found that court orders and Affirmative Action plans in specific departments worked to African American women officers’ disadvantage: African American women were left out of the decisions/promotions in terms that benefited African American men and white women. Indeed, when the few coveted promotional places earmarked for women or for African Americans became available, there was a sense that the former were for white women and the latter for African American men. Thus, some African American men police were more hostile to African American women officers than they were to the white women officers with whom they had to compete for the African American positions. S E. Martin (1994) concludes, “Men of each race control women’s on-duty behavior by threatening them with social isolation” (p. 396). Research using intensive interviews with all 21 African American women officers in a large urban police department found that the women reported significant gender discrimination, racial discrimination, police subculture exclusion, and prejudicial assumptions about their hiring and promotions (Pogrebin et al., 2000). The racial and gender discrimination often intersected, and the racism committed by the younger White officers appeared to be worse than that by the older White officers, indicating it might be getting worse. Exclusion for the department culture not only meant being blatantly or subtly told that no matter what they did on the job they would never be considered equals, but also the dangerous practice of not backing them up on a risky call (Pogrebin et al., 2000). Regarding their hiring and promotions, it was typically assumed by others that they were hired or promoted simply because of their race and gender and not because they deserved the appointments (Pogrebin et al., 2000). S. E. Martin (1994) identified the token nature of African American men in police departments as an organizational structure that further impacts African American women. For example, white male officers were protective of White, but not of African American, women officers. Although the African American male officers were generally protective of the African American women officers, they were fewer in number and, therefore, less available when needed. In addition, African American men faced pressures from the white men (or their shared resistance to women on patrol) not to back the women up (p. 392). Another form of organizational impact regarding gender (and often, racism) was Martin’s finding that as women (particularly African American women) advanced to some of the station house administrative jobs, their better clerical abilities (compared to the administrator men who worked there) actually backfired. Martin found that these first women advancing to administration had far better typing skills and thus were able to more quickly and effectively complete paperwork. The result was that these jobs became organizationally redefined as feminine, resulting in less prestige and authority. Finally, Martin documented the difficulty of women officers to unite against sexism across race. She notes that this is due not only to the effectiveness of white males’ divide-and-conquer strategy but also to the fact that many of the African American women found the white female officers to be every bit as racist as the white male officers.

Additional studies on the intersections of race/ethnicity and gender among police used surveys of officers in the Baltimore (Gustafson, 2008) and Milwaukee (Stroshine & Brandl, 2011) police departments to study levels of tokenism, with varying measures of workplace hardship, such as limited opportunities, isolation, and heightened visibility. Heightened visibility was due to their token status, whereby anything they did “wrong” (which was often simply differently than how white men behaved on the job) was addressed and criticized. Both studies found race/ethnicity was an even stronger determinant of tokenism than gender, but there were important intersections between race/ethnicity and gender (Gustafson, 2008; Stroshine & Brandl, 2011). In the Milwaukee study, Black men reported the greatest tokenism, followed by Black women, then Latino men, followed by Latina and white women (who were indistinguishable in their tokenism levels) and reported the least tokenism other than white men (Stroshine & Brandl 2011). The Baltimore study found that white men were the least likely to feel visible and criticized while men of Color felt most criticism and visibility, followed by women of Color and then white women (Gustafson, 2008). Using the same Milwaukee data, another study evaluated police officers’ self-reported positive and negative workplace experiences, taking into consideration sexual minority status as well as race/ethnicity and gender (Hassell & Brandl, 2009). This study found that while across identities officers share many problems and concerns (e.g., lack of support), there were troubling patterns. “Generally, those officers who have the greatest representation in the organization (White, male, heterosexual) have the most favorable workplace experiences while those individuals who have the least representation (minority, female, gay/bisexual) have the least favorable workplace” (Hassell & Brandl, 2009, p. 423). Additionally, officers of Color reported less opportunity than White officers, women officers reported all of the workplace sexually offensive behaviors, women of Color reported the least workplace support, African Americans reported the most workplace theft and vandalism victimizations, and African American women reported the most workplace ridicule and being set up by other officers.

Heterosexism/Homophobia/Transphobia Given that law enforcement officers view themselves as policing deviancy, and nonheterosexual sex, or even same-sex sexual attractions, have a long history of being “deviant” and even criminal, being an LBGTQI+ police officer can be very stressful (Burke, 1994). Similarly, Burke (1995) addressed the “lack of harmony” and “conflicting values and ideologies” between the gay community and the police; thus, “the plight of the gay or lesbian police officer is far worse” than for straight officers (pp. 543, 544). Moreover, given that the category “women” has challenged the traditional (straight, White, male) police officer role with gender stereotypes, LGBTQI+ individuals most certainly do, as well (Galvin-White & O’Neal, 2016; S. L. Miller et al., 2004). Not surprisingly, then, historically, lesbian and gay police officers have been very closeted at work, or only out to a few trusted colleagues, due to realistic fears of discrimination and harassment (Colvin, 2012). Given a lengthy history of police abuse of LGBTQI+ individuals, for example, the Stonewall Riots, it is also not surprising that some LGB police have been “closeted” as police officers, even to the LGB community (Burke, 1995). Burke (1995) identified four stages of career model identity formation among LGB police officers: (1) police identity prioritization (to be accepted by work peers and supervisors), (2) transition (tiring of keeping a secret/closeted life at work), (3) sexual identity prioritization (valuing connections to the LGB community more than the police force), and (4) integration (feeling they do not have to choose loyalty to the police force or the LGB community—they can have both). Although Burke published this in 1995 and it seems somewhat outdated, even a recent study revealed LGB officers’ fears of being out at work and lesbian officers’ tension between being loyal to three identities: law enforcement, woman, and lesbian (Workman-Stark, 2017, p. 49). The advent of LGBTQI+ rights, promotion of more community-focused (less crimefighting-focused) policing, the passing of local, state, and federal laws, and societal changes have allowed lesbian and gay officers to serve more openly (Colvin, 2012).

S. L. Miller’s (1999) ethnography of a community policing program reported the disproportionate number of “out” lesbians, which is particularly impressive given when her data were collected. A more recent study of lesbian and gay police found 82% were out to everyone in their lives, including their coworkers (Colvin, 2014). Few studies have focused specifically on lesbians in law enforcement. S. L. Miller and colleagues’ (2004) study on lesbian police (not her community policing book just referenced) found varying degrees of being “closeted” and “out” on the job; some were quite closeted and others were out from the time they started the police academy. The women’s “outness” seemed, understandably, to be highly influenced by the department climate. As expected, departments that valued sexual diversity, provided training and verbal and written support respecting lesbian/gay identities, and saw these attitudes and practices as advantages for their interaction with the citizens housed lesbians who were more likely to be out. Importantly, lesbians of Color were more reluctant to be out because they already felt overly high visibility as women and women of Color. Additionally, being closeted was related to higher job stress. Galvin-White and O’Neal’s (2016) more recent study of 15 lesbian police found that although 14 were out in their personal lives, only 1 started her career in policing as “out.” Over their careers, 8 became selectively out to coworkers and 3 were fully out to coworkers. At least one of the women had survived a police chief who announced anyone who was “gay or lesbian” would go “down in flames” (p. 265). As one might expect, the women were more likely to choose to come out at work when they felt accepted and had a respected reputation in their departments, but also because “they figured everyone knew” (p. 266). The participants reported far more positive than negative/punitive working relationships with both their peers and their supervisors. Some readers may have noticed that I sometimes use LGB instead of LGBTQI+ or other notations in this chapter. This is because the extremely limited research on LGB and CLS workers rarely mentions trans/nonbinary people as CLS workers, although there is a growing body of research on policing and incarcerating trans individuals. The exception is an Australian study by Miles-Johnson (2019) that found among an online study of 742 police recruits, all of the recruits identified as cisgender (identifying with the sex they were assigned at birth). Certainly, some may be transgender but did not feel safe answering this on the online survey, but it could also be that transgender people do not apply to policing jobs because of transphobia, despite the research confirming the need for better interface with LGBTQI+ individuals and communities. In the Miles-Johnson study, 94.9% of the 742 police recruits identified as cisgender, 3.2% as gay, and 1.9% as lesbian. Even more striking, given their greater representation in the population and also a history fraught with poor police treatment, no recruits identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; a half percent (0.5%) identified as members of an ethnic minority group (Miles-Johnson, 2019, p. 5). Notably, both women recruits (regardless of sexual identity) and lesbian/gay recruits were significantly more likely than the men and straight recruits, respectively, to report that they would be willing to work alongside trans officers (Miles-Johnson, 2019).

SUMMARY This chapter on women’s entry into police work shadows much of the historic and legal history covered in the previous chapter on women’s entry to working in prisons and jails. In both cases, they were first hired to work with women and children, stressing a maternal role, and in both cases, Title VII was hugely important but did not result in women’s smooth transitions into these jobs. The previous chapter reported that from 2006 to 2010, 27.5% of U.S. prison and jail workers were women. This chapter reported that in 2016 women constituted 12.6% of U.S. police officers— less than half of women’s representation among U.S. prison and jail workers. Clearly, policing has not had the same success in gender diversification as prison and jail work. Just as many of the gender differences found in how women “do” prison/jail work is beneficial to the overall non-punitive mission of prisons/jails, the gendered differences in “doing” police work are also more consistent with community policing and less

punitive, crime-fighting models. This is not to essentialize women police or men police but rather to note that research documents how women as a group have brought many positive aspects to police work that are consistent with better community–police relations. For example, Bergman and colleagues (2016) succinctly state that “women officers are less likely to use excessive force than are male officers, and thus police organizations should attempt to recruit and hire more women” (p. 591). This chapter also covered the extreme historical and continued resistance to women in policing. Title VII was hugely important for hiring women into what S. E. Martin (1980) called “the backbone” of policing—patrol work. Yet women still face token status in law enforcement, and many women report a highly sexist and hostile workplace. Thus, although it is important to have governmental policies implemented, it is also clear from the research that individual law enforcement agencies need to consciously make decisions to have departments that more clearly reflect the communities they serve, particularly in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. They also need to more proactively change the intensely masculine culture in the department and in responses to citizens. Hiring more women, people of Color, and members of the LGBTQI+ community and providing them with a professional and safe work environment will assist in effecting this change. At the same time, some research on the resilience and persistence of women police is encouraging and inspiring. One such study found that none of the women police “stated that they would not recommend law enforcement as a career to other women” (although 36% reported that it would depend on the individual woman) (Archbold & Schulz 2008, p. 67). Rabe-Hemp’s (2008b) in-depth qualitative interviews with women police found that “despite early occupational experiences of sexual harassment, discrimination, and disrespect, after long tenures, female officers do achieve acceptance in police work” and achieve “new ‘firsts’ every day, including breaking into stereotypically masculine assignments” (p. 251). M. Dodge and colleagues’ (2011) study of SWAT team members found despite their sexist work climate, they “perceived themselves as competent and valuable additions to SWAT” (p. 699). H. H. Yu’s (2018) qualitative study of women federal law enforcement officers focused on their persistence in the job, because many women do “achieve occupational success despite the obstacles” (p. 306). Yu found the reasons they persist in policing are consistent with the some of the reasons stated earlier with why women want to go into police work: wanting to help others and the pay and benefits. But these women also reported staying because they like the challenge of the job and their ability to transfer to other federal agencies.

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure This timeline shows the years from 1903 to 1977 and the respective country against each year seen on the timeline. The corresponding years to country are: 1903 Germany [superscript a] 1910 United States [superscript a] 1913 Canada [superscript a] 1915 England [superscript b] 1925 Poland [superscript a]

1903 Germany [superscript a] 1933 China [superscript a] 1939 India [superscript c] 1946 Japan [superscript a] 1946 Hungary [superscript e] 1949 Hong Kong [superscript e] 1949 Sweden [superscript e] 1949 Singapore [superscript e] 1952 Ghana [superscript e] 1955 Nigeria [superscript a] 1957 Ireland [superscript d] 1965 Kenya [superscript e] 1970 Bahrain [superscript f] 1977 United Arab Emirates [superscript g] Note below the figure reads: Sources: Compiled from data reported in the text in superscript a: Segrave (1995), superscript b: Heidensohn (1992), superscript c: Natarajan (1996), superscript d: Shepard (2009), superscript e: J. Brown, Hazenberg, & Ormiston (1999), superscript f: K. Strobl & Sung (2009), superscript g: Chu & Abdulla (2014).

13 WOMEN WORKING IN THE COURTS Despite universal adoption of women’s initiatives, a ramping up of broader diversity initiatives, and increased awareness of the challenges women face in their advancement through the law firm, there has been little progress made in recent years that is reflected in noticeable increases in representation of women and diverse attorneys, particularly at the more senior, higher status levels of the law firm. —Peery (2019, p. 15)

We are way past the point where mere lip service to the goal of gender equality in the [legal] profession will suffice. —Liebenberg and Scharf (2019, p. ii)

This is the last chapter of the section on women criminal legal system (CLS) workers. In Chapter 11, I requested that throughout these chapters on CLS women workers, the reader ask: “How might justice have been served differently if women had been key decision-makers?” Durham (1998, p. 223) appropriately questions how judicial laws and court decisions on marital rape, incarcerating status offenders, and treating women victims less seriously in civil suits may have been different had women been lawyers, judges, and on juries earlier. Historically and into the 1970s, women wanting to work in the legal profession typically faced four obstacles: (1) obtaining a legal education or training, (2) access to take the bar exam, (3) access to try cases in upper courts even after passing the bar, and (4) finding employment (Berkson, 1982; F. Kay & Gorman, 2008; Norgren, 2013). Similar to research questioning how women’s entry into guarding and policing jobs could change those occupations, much of the research on women in legal professions questions whether their significant entry into these jobs changed “the nature of substantive law and how law is practiced” (F. Kay & Gorman, 2008, p. 320). F. Kay and Gorman (2008) identify two theories to try to explain “how women’s legal thinking and behavior would differ from men’s”: The first is that women judges and lawyers have “a stronger feminist consciousness,” and the second is that they bring a “different moral voice” (p. 320). The feminist consciousness view is that women legal professionals will have a better understanding of oppression given their own experiences with sexism (at least) and that they will view themselves as representing women. The different moral voice view is based on psychologist Carol Gilligan’s highly popular book In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, published in 1982, “asking whether women approach the practice of law in a more cooperative, caring fashion and take into account more of the contextual details of their clients’ lives” (p. 322). Clearly, these are not mutually exclusive. The feminist consciousness and different moral voice perspectives are also consistent for women’s contributions to the legal field with policing scholar Barbara R. Price’s (1989) question in the previous chapter about women’s contributions to policing: “Do women change policing or does policing changes women?” The legal profession is still very male-dominated. In addition, the court system is driven by legal precedent, a centuries-long pattern of largely wealthy, white men arguing and deciding on cases as jury members, attorneys, and judges. Indeed, neither feminist consciousness nor different moral voice is sufficient to make a gender difference, particularly when the law is so masculinist and male-dominated (Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019). Clearly, gender-neutral outcomes would not justify barriers to women’s entry into these jobs, but these are useful to examine. Women’s access to becoming police officers and prison and jail guards had significant overlap. Women’s access to the courts is quite different, and it is useful to

examine this transition of women into the most prestigious jobs in the CLS, those of legal professionals. Before addressing women’s journeys to and experiences with legal education and training, and work as lawyers, judges, and law professors, however, it is valuable to understand the history of women on juries.

THE HISTORY OF WOMEN ON JURIES Serving on juries is an area in which women and men of Color have been shortchanged. Although many people view jury duty as annoying and inconvenient, it is a fundamental form of citizenship. Aristotle defined a citizen as “one who rules and is ruled in return”; thus, the term citizen is an equalizing word (Kerber, 1997, p. 834). Excluding women from jury duty in fact excludes them from full citizenship (Eastwood, 1975; Lucie, 1988). Courts’ restrictions of women from military service and some other occupations has “transformed biological distinctions into cultural imperatives” where biology becomes destiny (Rhode, 1990, p. 121) and an “advantage” becomes discrimination (Lucie, 1988). Jury duty is an important service, and jury selection should not systematically disallow members of the population. When laws or voir dire (lawyers’ questioning of potential jury members for inclusion) policies exclude women from jury duty, “they limit both the woman’s right to participate in the judicial process and the plaintiff’s and defendant’s right to a representative jury” (A. R. Mahoney, 1987, p. 209). Similarly, Kerber (1997) states, “The right to enjoy a trial by jury is mirrored by an obligation to serve on juries if called” (p. 835). Kerber carefully reports ways that citizenship has not been given or acquired equally or neutrally, through tracing the U.S. government–sanctioned murders of Native Americans, removal of Latinx from the United States to Mexico, and the forced internment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II. Thus, she concludes that “the dream of an unranked citizenship has always been in tension with the waking knowledge of a citizenship to which people came by different routes, bounded by gender, race, and class identities” (Kerber, 1997, p. 846). Although the political movement for women to serve on juries was a hard-fought battle and prominent in the news during the time, it is largely forgotten. Some states allowed women on juries when they granted suffrage (McCammon, 2012). In 1870, Territorial Wyoming was the first place in the United States allowing women on juries (although it was withdrawn the next year), and Mississippi was the last place allowing this right in 1968 (McCammon, 2012). In the United States, the 1957 Civil Rights Act permitted women to serve on federal court juries but had nothing to say about state courts (A. R. Mahoney, 1987, p. 210). It was common during this period for states to have automatic exemptions for women, meaning women could avoid jury duty simply because they were women (an example of sex-specific legislation). Automatic exemptions may strike some as an advantage for women, but it had two unfortunate results: (1) Juries were not peers or representative (which may be unfair to both complainants and defendants), and (2) in states where women had automatic exemption, clerks routinely and deliberately did not call women for jury duty because they assumed the women would want their exemption (A. R. Mahoney, 1987). Thus, even women who wanted or were indifferent to serving on juries were not aware of this opportunity, a practice that structured juries as almost completely or exclusively men. In 1961 an all-man jury convicted Gwendolyn Hoyt of second-degree murder of her abusive husband. Her counsel appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, charging in Hoyt v. Florida (1961) that requiring women to register for jury duty at the courthouse had denied Hoyt equal protection and a jury of her peers (C. S. Thomas, 1991). The U.S. Supreme Court decided women’s domestic burdens were more important than their civil obligations; that is, women’s “rightful” place in the home justified deterring them from jury duty. “The court found no suspicion of denial of equal protection when only 10 out of 10,000 jurors were women” in Florida (A. R. Mahoney, 1987, p. 211). The unanimous court decision said it was protecting women from the “obscene” courtroom. It was not until Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) that women could no longer be exempt from jury service based simply on their sex. In fact, the Supreme Court decided an all-male jury was not equal protection for Billy J. Taylor, accused of kidnapping Louise Willie with a butcher knife out of the car she was in with her daughter and grandson, forcing her to go to a deserted area, raping her, and

robbing all of them. Thus, sexism in jury representation, and specifically an all-male in jury, was not considered problematic for a woman accused of killing her abusive husband (Hoyt v. Florida) but was decided as unacceptable for a man accused of aggravated kidnapping and rape (Taylor v. Louisiana). The court has traditionally focused on “the reasonable person” when defending all white men or all men jurors, assuming if jurors are reasonable, they will be impartial, disregarding the underpinnings of “a jury of one’s peers” (Marder, 2002). Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented in the Taylor decision to include women jurors because he thought this “smacked more as mysticism than of law” (Marder, 2002, p. 664). But juries of our peers are important not only for matters of equality and representation but also participation. Research shows that women participate more in sexual assault cases and African Americans participate more when there is an African American defendant (Cornwell & Hans, 2011). Even if women made it as far as the jury pool, they were often easily dismissed from actual jury service as a result of sexist assumptions and questions by lawyers during voir dire (the practice of lawyers questioning potential jurors before a trial). This practice was legally challenged for the first time in 1983, when attorney Carolyn Bobb, called for jury duty, “refused to answer questions regarding her marital status and spouse’s occupation” given that the lawyers were not asking this of the men but routinely asked it of the women in the jury pool (A. R. Mahoney, 1987, p. 212). For her refusal to answer, she was “held in contempt of court and taken into custody … sentenced to one day in jail with credit for time served” (p. 212). Unfortunately, the vast body of research on gender and race and jury members’ decision-making is conducted with mock trials or vignette surveys. It is not as if there is a lack of actual jury trials from which to collect data, and such findings would be far more valid given that the jurors would be deciding about actual people’s lives. An exception, Marder’s (2002) study of actual trials, found that the more genderbalanced (equal numbers of women and men) the jury, the greater the likelihood that the juror members reported their deliberations as more (1) thorough, (2) harmonious (less hostile), and (3) satisfactory (in terms of the experience and verdict). Another of the studies relying on actual trials and jury members found that although there was generally high engagement by all jurors, especially in murder trials, African Americans’ participation was statistically the strongest (Cornwell & Hans, 2011). There were few gender differences except that women participate more in sex offense (but not murder and nonviolent) cases, and Asian American women participate slightly but significantly less than Asian American men (Cornwell & Hans, 2011). Salerno and Peter-Hagene’s (2015) mock jury study where the participants believed they were deliberating via computer in an actual murder trial (thus more valid than typical mock jury studies), found women jurors who expressed anger had less influence, whereas angry men jurors had more influence, “even when making identical arguments” (p. 581).

THE HISTORY OF WOMEN’S ACCESS TO LEGAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (Mostly White) Women’s Entry Into Legal Education and Practice The first woman to practice law in the United States arrived in the “New World” in 1638 and acquired considerable real estate holdings. She was addressed as “Gentleman Margaret Brent” in person and in court records (Berkson, 1982; Morello, 1986). Brent was very successful, particularly regarding land deals, and was consistently employed by the governor. Ironically, then, despite the far greater prestige of “attorney” relative to “police officer” and “prison/jail guard,” women have been far more successful at breaking into the legal profession, practicing law for centuries—albeit in small numbers—before they were allowed to work as police officers or as guards in men’s prisons. Perhaps this is because in law there is less actual physical contact with and controlling of men offenders than is likely with

policing and prison jobs (e.g., arresting, deterring, and guarding). Like the pioneering women in policing and guard work, women lawyers’ most significant resistors were the men in their profession. Other than Brent and a handful of women lawyers, little is known about women practicing law in the United States from colonial times until the mid-1800s (Berkson, 1982; Morello, 1986). Between the late 1800s and the years immediately preceding World War II, few women were practicing law. At the close of the Civil War, in 1865, there were no women lawyers in the entire country. The national census counted 5 women lawyers in 1870, a number that slowly increased over the next three decades to 75 in 1880 and 1,010 in 1900 (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 7). The research about the 1800s (and well into the 1990s) stresses resistance from the elitist, White men who were in the legal profession as attorneys, judges, law school professors, and members of the bar admission boards. They were opposed to women lawyers due to the sexist belief that the “law was a hard-nosed, ‘male’ profession” (Bernat, 1992, pp. 310–311), and women were weaker in mind and body than men (Bernat, 1992; Morello, 1986; Norgren, 2013; Pollock-Byrne et al., 1995; Weisberg, 1982). More specifically, they assumed and sometimes accused women of being too sensitive and emotional (Norgren, 2013; Pollock-Byrne et al., 1995), unable to be discreet (Weisberg, 1982), beholden to marriage and motherhood before career (Norgren, 2013; Weisberg, 1982), and lacking “the physical strength to handle heavy caseloads” (Morello, 1986, p. xi). Some went so far as to resist women lawyers because, given that juries were all men, it would be unfair to men lawyers, that women could use their attractiveness to “unfairly sway juries” (Morello, 1986, p. xi), “thus putting in peril the very foundation of the American judicial system” (Norgren, 2013, p. 144). Similarly, until 1971, women and men taking the bar exam in New York had to sit separately because of assumptions that the women would “excite the men” and distract them from taking their exams (DeCrow, 1975). Although men could receive legal training either through apprenticeships with an attorney or by attending law school, both of these avenues were customarily closed to women unless a father, brother, or husband “allowed” his daughter, sister, or wife to clerk with him (Barteau, 1997; Morello, 1986; Norgren, 2013). Ada Kepley was the first woman in a U.S. law school entering what was to become Northwestern University Law School in 1868 and graduating in 1870 (Norgren, 2013, pp. 35–36). Three women are known to have entered law school the following year: Lemma Barkaloo, Phoebe Couzins, and Mary Ann Shadd Cary. Barkaloo and Couzins attended Washington University in Missouri in 1869, and Mary Ann Shad is believed to have enrolled in Howard Law School (Norgren, 2013, p. 35). Barkaloo left her native New York to attend law school at Washington University after being denied admittance to Harvard and Columbia law schools (Barteau, 1997). A diary entry of one of the (all-men) faculty at Columbia University Law School at the time claimed he was “saving women from practicing law” and how “women’s rights women” were loud and offensive (Barteau, 1997). Mary Ann Shad, the first Black woman to enroll in law school, was a teacher and journalist, and is believed to have enrolled in Howard Law School in 1869 (Norgren, 2013, p. 35). Three historical events relate to legal training becoming accessible to women and to less wealthy men in the 1830s and 1840s (Morello, 1986). First, as Whites increasingly colonized the western part of the United States, more women became lawyers. The western colonization provided white women with increasing amounts of freedom: The farther away they were from the staid northeastern society, the greater their independence was (Morello, 1986). Second, the corresponding decrease in the prestige of legal practice also, and predictably, opened the door to women. Third, men fighting in the Civil War opened women’s opportunities to fill the vacant clerkship and law school positions (Morello, 1986). It is ironic that in many countries, including the United States, women could legally practice law before they could vote (Dilg, 2012). In both the United States and England, there was a significant link between women’s right to vote (suffrage) and women’s entry into legal professions, as battling the law was necessary both for the right to vote and for women’s greater equality in other ways. For example, in the 1800s, married women were unable to receive professional educations, hold elective

offices, enter into contracts, obtain custody of their children, and control their own money—even when they had earned it (Morello, 1986; Norgren, 2013). Laws forbidding women to enter into contracts obviously stymied their ability to practice law. Although the first women lawyers were by and large, across race/ethnicity, progressive in their support for gender and other types of equality, it is also important to note that “several of the earliest women lawyers were attracted by the intellectual challenge of reading law” (Norgren, 2013, p. 25). Not surprisingly, once acquiring legal training either through apprenticeships or law schools, many women used this training/education to obtain admittance to the bar so that they could practice law (Norgren, 2013), and once admitted to the bar, women members of the legal profession used this to gain women’s access to law schools and trying cases before the federal and state courts (Feinman, 1986; Norgren, 2013). One of these women was Myra Bradwell, who passed the bar in 1869 after apprenticing with her husband, a judge. However, the Illinois Bar denied her a license to practice because she was married. She argued to the court of entirely men judges that she was a citizen and her marital status did not matter. Unfortunately, all but one of the judges disagreed, so Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) legally barred married women from practicing the law. Justice Bradley, concurring with the opinion of the court, was not concerned with discrimination against married or unmarried women. He wrote: It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases. (Justice Bradley, in Bradwell v. Illinois, 1873) Unfortunately, Bradwell’s experiences are like what many other aspiring women attorneys had to endure until most states amended their statutes in the 1870s and dropped the word male for practicing attorneys and expanded the definition of citizens to include women (Barteau, 1997; Norgren, 2013). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed Bradwell v. Illinois in 1985. The first woman formally admitted to the bar and licensed to practice in the United States, Arabelle Mansfield, apprenticed with one of her previous college professors and her brother, and passed the Iowa bar in 1869 (Feinman, 1986; Mossman, 2006; Norgren, 2013). In 1879, Mansfield helped found the Iowan Suffrage Association. In addition to advancing women’s rights to law school and trying cases in courts, the early women lawyers worked for women’s rights to suffrage, birth control, and abolition (ending U.S. slavery) (Feinman, 1986; Morello, 1986; Mossman, 2006; Norgren, 2013). Many had parents who were abolitionist activists (Mossman, 2006; Norgren, 2013). Almost all of the first women lawyers, regardless of their race, were active in individual women’s and children’s cases (particularly those involving abuse and abandonment) and advocating for poor individuals and groups and often Native Americans, African Americans, and immigrants (Morello, 1986; Norgren, 2013). Notably, many of the early women lawyers had incredibly supportive husbands (e.g., Bradwell), some never married (e.g., Lavinia Goodell and Leila Robinson), and some became lawyers because of or in spite of abusive and or cheating husbands they divorced (Norgren, 2013, 2018) Regardless of their relationship status, it was used against them. Again, it was particularly difficult for married women to become lawyers unless they were married to a lawyer who was willing to train them. In fact, in 1890 more than one sixth of women lawyers were married to (men) lawyers (Weisberg, 1982). Still, even many married women who were legally permitted to practice law were restricted by society and, sometimes, by their own husbands and families, who did not believe women could have both marriages and careers (Drachman, 1989). In the late 1800s, after countless refusals allowing her to practice before the federal courts solely because she was a woman, Belva Lockwood was finally granted the opportunity to be the first woman lawyer to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879 (Barteau, 1997; Norgren, 2018). She obtained a $5 million (about $130

million in 2020) settlement for the Cherokee Nation from the U.S. government (Morello, 1986). This is particularly remarkable given that Lockwood was also denied acceptance to numerous law schools on the basis that she would distract the young men. When she was finally accepted to a law school, her classmates, all men, threatened to boycott graduation if she were given a law degree (Barteau, 1997).

Women of Color’s Entry Into Legal Education and Practice In addition to the strong likelihood of having husbands and family members who were lawyers, another characteristic that the first women lawyers shared with each other, but also many of the first women guards and police, was their tendency to come from White and wealthy families (Weisberg, 1982). Certainly, as stated, many of the first white women lawyers worked on behalf of people of Color and immigrants, but many White feminist activists focused on white women’s rights, and African American men activists focused on African American men’s rights. Thus, African American women activists often felt ignored and forced to divide their loyalties between their race and their gender (Morello, 1986). Even Howard University, a historically Black college, resisted admitting women to the law school. In the 1880s, Charlotte E. Ray, the first African American woman lawyer in the United States, and the first woman (of any race/ethnicity) admitted to the Washington, D.C., bar, gained entry to Howard Law School by using only her initials for her first and second names in her application; she graduated in 1872 (Barteau, 1997; Mack, 2002; McDaniel, 2007; Morello, 1986). “Her race, however, combined with her sex, made it impossible for her to make a living as an attorney. Ray quit the law and moved to New York City, where she taught school” (Norgren, 2013, pp. xvi–xvii). “Before the 1920s … few if any black women practiced law full time. However, two decades later, dozens were in full-time practice, and many were building careers that would earn them the envy, and sometimes hostility, of their male colleagues” (Mack, 2002, p. 1408). Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander (1898–1989), Pennsylvania’s first African American woman lawyer, was “among the most noteworthy women lawyers of her era” (Mack, 2002, p. 1406). She was also “one of the most highly educated women of her time” with bachelor’s (1918), master’s (1919) and doctorate (Ph.D., 1921) degrees in economics, and her J.D. (1927) all from the University of Pennsylvania (Mack, 2002, p. 1406). After law school she joined a prominent Black law firm founded by her husband with a successful practice in probate and domestic relations. When the firm dissolved in 1959, she started her own law firm, which was Philadelphia’s “leading civil rights law firm—litigating desegregation cases, defending racially biased criminal prosecutions, mobilizing community support for integration, and lobbying legislators and public officials for changes in civil rights laws and policies” (Mack, 2002, p. 1406). Ms. Alexander was nationally known for her 25 years as the secretary of the National Urban League, her elected board membership on the ACLU, and President Truman’s President’s Committee on Civil Rights. In 1978, when Alexander was 81, President Carter appointed her to the White House Conference on Aging. In 1939, still Pennsylvania’s only Black woman lawyer, Alexander started corresponding with African American women practicing law elsewhere in the United States and in 1941 she published what she found: 57 African American women lawyers, mostly clustered in Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C. (Mack, 2002, p. 1407). One of her correspondents was Jane Matilda Bolin. In law school, Bolin was one of three women students and the only Black student in her class. In 1931, Bolin was the first Black woman to graduate from Yale Law School (Mack, 2002; D. Martin, 2007), to join the New York City Bar Association (in 1932), to join the New York City Law Department (1937), and to serve as a U.S. judge (in 1939) (Blackburne-Rigsby, 2009; D. Martin, 2007). Although she was from a long line of free African Americans in New York, the Great Migration (the influx of African Americans from the South from 1910 to 1930), was likely influential in her leaving rural New York to move to New York City, where Mayor Fiorello La Guardia openly endorsed Black politicians and appointed her to be the first U.S. African American woman judge (Blackburne-Rigsby, 2009).

Two historical accounts of the first Black women lawyers (Mack, 2002; McDaniel, 2007) document the unexpected finding that despite the racism and sexism they experienced, as a group, they were hugely successful, indeed more so than many accounts of the first White U.S. women lawyers. Their incredible resourcefulness and commitment to establishing local and national community ties made them highly effective attorneys. McDaniel’s (2007) dissertation on 14 of the first women lawyers, practicing from 1872 to 1932, reported that although they faced significant deterrents to becoming lawyers, “their decision to enter was much less arduous” than White women’s (p. 56, italics in the original). McDaniel (2007) identified two tracks to law in these women’s lives. First, half of the women were from well-educated and encouraging families, with lawyer fathers, brothers, husbands, or other men in their families to mentor them. They were also raised with “a sense of social responsibility” and the expectation that they should use their educations to give back to their communities (pp. 56–57). The other half of these early African American women lawyers did not come from highly educated families and/or with men kin who were lawyers but rather were motivated to be in the legal profession through their employment as court stenographers or reporters, or social workers who wanted to work in probate, family, and child law (p. 57).

WOMEN IN LAW SCHOOLS SINCE THE 1950S In 1869, the University of Iowa and Washington University were the first law schools open to women (Norgren, 2013). Although there were several dozen such law schools in the United States by 1872, few actually welcomed women until the turn of the 20th century (Norgren, 2013). Similar to the Civil War leaving vacancies in clerkships and law schools (Morello, 1986), the exodus of young men to fight in World War II “virtually decimated law schools”; some closed until after the war while “others temporarily increased their enrollment of women,” with the unprecedented rate of 12% of women in law schools approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 7). This was short-lived, however, lasting only until the war was over. The most elite law schools, the Ivy League, were the last in the United States to accept women students, and Harvard Law School was one of the last law schools to accept women when it did so in 1950. Legal scholars identify law schools as ideally suited for being at the forefront of attacking gender bias in the legal profession and fighting for gender equality in general (Tobias, 1990; Wald et al., 2010). Yet between 1947 and 1966, women constituted 3% to 4% of every law class (R. K. Neumann, 2000), and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (2004) points out that a commonly used law school property casebook published in 1968 “made this parenthetical comment: ‘[F]or after all, land, like woman, was meant to be possessed’” (p. 803). The mid-1960s were a dramatic turning point in “the demographics of the law school populations” when “virtually all law schools had removed the barriers that had prevented the admission of women students,” and women active in the civil rights and women’s movements were motivated to pursue law degrees (H. H. Kay, 1991). For women applying to law school, long used to gender quotas and other forms of discrimination, the timing of Title IX, the women’s movement, “and the empty seats created by the Vietnam War draft” created “a game changer. Applications were now judged on merit. By the year 2000 half of law school seats would be filled by women” (Norgren, 2018, p. 18). This increase of women in law schools in the mid-1960s was met with significant resistance from some male faculty who did not think women belonged there, firms that refused to hire, or even interview them upon graduation, the bar that discriminated against them, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who resisted helping them (Strebeigh, 2009). Within and across many law schools, feminist law students began organizing (sometimes in the law school women’s bathrooms). One such student, Diane Blank, took the sexism in a firm’s interviewing and hiring process to court in Diane Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell in 1975. This landmark case is a great story about feminist law students, lawyers, and a judge (Strebeigh, 2009).

In 1967, the percentage of women in law school started rising; it reached 20% in 1974, 40% in 1985, and 45% by the mid-1990s (Gorman, 2005; R. K. Neumann, 2000). The year 2001 was “the first time more than half of the entering class of law students” in the United States were women (Schafran, 2004). In 2003, women constituted nearly or, in some cases, more than half of the graduating classes in the most prestigious law schools’ graduating classes (depending on the law school) (Noonan & Corcoran, 2004). However, most reports for 2010, 2011, and 2012 indicate that women were 45% to 49% of law students in the United States and Canada (Law School Admission Council, 2013). Table 13.1 is the most recent law school enrollment data, for first-year full-time law students in 2019, of which 54.0% were women, 0.4% trans/nonbinary, and 45.6% men. Table 13.1 ● 2019 Total First-Year Fall Law School Enrolled Students: Gender by Race/Ethnicitya

Gender

Total

Women Men 54.0%

Nonbinary

45.6% 0.4%

Race/Ethnicity White

66.7% 65.8%

67.6% 63.1%

Latinx

13.6% 11.0%

16.5% 10.7%

Native American

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.0%

Asian American

6.7%

7.7%

5.6%

6.8%

Black/African American

8.1%

10.2%

5.8%

9.7%

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

1.9%

Biracial or Multiracial

4.6%

3.7%

7.8%

4.2%

Source: Calculated from ABA Enrollment Data Excel File 2019 IL Class Enrollment Data by Gender & Race/Ethnicity (Aggregate) https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/statistics/ a There were a total of 38,283 students for whom gender was reported. Of these, 35,636 reported race/ethnicity. The race/ethnicity percentages are for a particular gender (i.e., women, men, nonbinary).

It is important to recognize how frequently Affirmative Action critiques have twisted and misrepresented these policies and their results regarding people of Color (more than White women). One such article in 2004 on African Americans accepted to law schools relied on such racist myths and assumptions as Black “inferiority” (Sander, 2004), sounding hauntingly similar to centuries-old reasons why White women should not be in law school (Moran, 2005; Sander, 2004). Although once again the data reports often failed to include gender and race/ethnicity, since 2000 and until recently, students of Color constituted 27% to 30% of law school students (Law School Admission Council, 2013). Table 13.1 not only includes binary gender status; it also includes the intersections of gender and race for the 2019 first-year law students. A full third (33.3%) of the 2019 law students were of Color, 13.6% Latinx, 8.1% African American, 6.7% Asian American, and 4.2% biracial or multiracial. A startling half a

percentage point were Native American, and one tenth of a percentage point were Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Although there were similarities in White students’ representation across gender, Latinx students were most likely men and African American students were most likely women. The nonbinary law students were disproportionately Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and biracial/multiracial (see Table 13.1). Research on law students in the 1990s reports some women’s frustration, such as feeling alienated, having worse mental health, and having to learn how to “think and act like a man” (Guinier et al., 1994, p. 5). Another 1990s study, this one on more than 200 African American women lawyers about their law school experience, found 87% reported being personally discriminated against in law school, reporting such actions as professors who repeatedly ignored their raised hands in class (Simpson, 1996). Ninety percent said they had been excluded from study groups organized by fellow students (Simpson, 1996). A more recent collection of essays from a small diverse group of women law students indicate many feel this alienation and sexism and racism, although others feel more support and independence (Wald, Snow, Van Hook, & Haberman, 2012).

WOMEN ATTORNEYS The Number of Women Attorneys In 1890, there were 135 women lawyers in the United States, mostly trained by brothers, fathers, or husbands (Barteau, 1997). A historical overview of women lawyers in the United States and Canada in the first half of the 1900s reported that in both countries (1) the number of lawyers about doubled in the first half of the 1900s, (2) the ratio of lawyers to the general population remained about the same from 1900 to 1961 (0.7 per 1,000 population in Canada and 1.25 per 1,000 in the United States), and (3) the ratio of men to women lawyers was declining (Hagan & Kay, 1995). Women’s representation among U.S. lawyers was 1.0% in 1910, 2.1% in 1930, 2.7% in 1963, and 2.8% in 1970 (Berkson, 1982). By 1980, women constituted 13% of lawyers, or almost 59,000 women lawyers (Berkson, 1982). Between 1973 and 1983, the number of African American women lawyers in the United States increased from 446 to 4,272 (Simpson, 1996). In 2009, women were 31% of active U.S. lawyers, and since 2014, their representation has remained constant, fluctuating between 34% and 35% (American Bar Association, 2019). Once again, no intersections of race and gender are provided, but representation across race has also stayed fairly steady since 2009, with the exception of White lawyers’ representation decreasing from 88% to 85% and the vast underrepresentation of people of Color (African Americans and Latinx, both at 5%; Asian Americans, 2%; Native Americans, 1%; and Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, 0%) (American Bar Association, 2019). Unfortunately, other than for firms and judges, it is difficult to find much detail on racial/ethnic distributions by gender or any other descriptive data (e.g., of lawyers in government jobs, which are disproportionately held by women).

The Experiences of Women Attorneys Compared to women in prison/jail and especially police work, women in the legal professions have had significantly higher representation (percentage of those in the occupation). However, research on attorneys suggests ways in which the profession still disproportionately restricts women and rewards men (Krakauer & Chen, 2003; Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Melaku, 2019; Wald, 2010). Key to the acceptance of women lawyers is their perceived credibility, which affects women as plaintiffs and defendants as well: “Women are denied collective credibility because as a group they are perceived as less believable than men” (Schafran, 2004, p. 459). Many studies document the significant sexism, including sexual harassment, perpetrated against women lawyers’ by male coworkers and superiors (Hagan & Kay, 1995; Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Melaku, 2019; Pierce, 1995; Pollock-Byrne et al., 1995; Riger et al.,

1995; Rosenberg, Perstadt, & Phillips, 1993; Sommerlad & Sanderson, 1998). One study reported that men’s hostility toward women lawyers was most likely to be perpetrated by men, starting with lawyers, followed by clients, judges, and other legal staff, respectively (Rosenberg et al., 1993). Although some believe that this gender discrimination is decreasing in frequency (Riger et al., 1995), research in the 2000s indicates sizable levels (Cortina et al., 2002; Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Melaku, 2019; Wald, 2010; Winkle & Wedeking, 2003), and a 2019 recent study, Walking Out the Door, found these experiences among senior women in firms (Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019). Few studies on lawyers’ experiences do so intersectionally. An exception is a recent study by T. A. Collins, Dumas, and Moyer (2017) with a sample of 2,000 attorneys. They note that lawyering involves “repeat-player advantage,” meaning the more networked the attorneys in the court system are, the more likely they are to have successful negotiations for their clients. They also note that such networking can be impacted by lawyers’ gender and race. Indeed, they found that women attorneys reported disproportionately more unfair treatment based on their gender/sex, and attorneys of Color reported disproportionately more unfair treatment based on their race than men and White attorneys, respectively, and that women of Color attorneys reported the highest levels of disparate treatment (T. A. Collins et al., 2017). T. A. Collins, Dumas, and Moyer (2018) studied attorneys’ experiences when they were practicing outside of their jurisdictions, where they had less access to their networks. Compared to White men, White women reported more disparate treatment from court staff, and men of Color reported more unfair treatment from judges. Additionally, although most early career attorneys reported higher levels of unfair treatment compared to their more seasoned colleagues, the biggest experience gap was not gendered, but it was raced: Men of Color reported the most unfair treatment from judges (T. A. Collins et al., 2018).

Gender Differences in Job Performance In 1995, two books on gender and legal practice were published, Pierce’s Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms and Hagan and Kay’s Gender in Practice: A Study of Lawyers’ Lives. The former is on the United States and the latter on Canada, which are quite similar in how law is practiced. They both note what is now called the “leaky pipeline,” which refers to the significantly lower retention of people other than white men in certain demanding jobs (and sometimes educational programs). Pierce’s book is an ethnography of paralegals and litigators, the latter being lawyers trying a case. She describes how litigation relies on gamesmanship and emotional labor. Gamesmanship is the adversarial model. Emotional labor has two forms: “intimidation” (being aggressive, tough and hard-hitting) and “strategic friendliness” (acting dumb and nice to manipulate and fool). Pierce effectively argues none of these time-tested on white men, masculinist lawyering behaviors are acceptable for women to do, because, like the other CLS jobs covered, they are not behaving in traditionally gender-scripted ways. Lindom, Gregory, and Johnson (2017) study of all U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments from 1986 to 2010 found that compared to men attorneys, women attorneys were treated differently. Compared to men attorneys at this highest court, justices directed more negative (“unpleasant”) language at women attorneys, did not allow them to speak as often, talked over (interrupted) them, and talked over petitioners and attorneys from the Office of the Solicitor General more often. The justices were especially likely to speak more during women attorney’s cases that were on gender issues, such as contraception, abortion, and gender discrimination. The authors conclude, “Given female attorneys face both types of negative treatment [treated more unpleasantly and not allowed to speak as much], it is not a stretch to think female attorneys have an uphill battle in front of the Supreme Court. And this has implications not only for female attorneys, but also for their clients” (Lindom et al., 2017, p. 1054). Patton and Smith’s (2017) study of 3,583 oral arguments from 1979 to 2013 at the U.S. Supreme Court similarly found that relative to men arguing these cases, women were interrupted earlier, allowed less time to speak between interruptions, and endured more and longer speeches from the justices. Indeed, this pattern was so strong that they concluded “gender negates the well-documented

positive effect of being on the winning side of a case” (p. 337); women attorneys making oral arguments, relative to such men attorneys, “are treated like losers whether they are on the winning side or not” (p. 352). Pierce’s (1995) argument, confirmed in Lindom et al.’s (2017) and Patton and Smith’s (2017) studies, that women lawyers are discriminated against by judges and justices, is useful when reading Gleason’s study that conducted contextual analysis on attorneys’ Supreme Court oral arguments from 2004 to 2016. More specifically, the first line, “Women are less successful than their male counterparts at Supreme Court oral arguments under certain circumstances” (Gleason, 2019, n.p.), is a switch-up from the previous studies. It appears because he assumes the more male lens of the (predominantly male) justices, he seemingly blames women attorneys rather than sexist justices. The “certain circumstances” to which Gleason (2019) refers are when women attorneys seemingly do not follow gender-prescribed roles when arguing before the Supreme Court. Indeed, to be successful they need to “use more emotional language. This is at odds with professional norms. However, existing work on gender at oral arguments focuses on the mere presence of female attorneys rather than how female attorneys perform gender” (n.p.). And, of course, men attorneys are rewarded for more emotional language in their oral arguments for their case outcomes. In short, women litigants must walk a fine line and apparently are not judged as much for the content of their arguments as how feminine they are in performing them. In a similar study with coauthors, using 2010 to 2013 U.S. Supreme Court contextual analysis, Gleason, Jones, and McBean (2019, pp. 494–495) found the “male justices evaluate counsel based on their compliance with traditional gender norms— rewarding male counsel for cool, unemotional arguments and rewarding female counsel for emotionally compelling arguments. However, we find no evidence that gender norms shape the opinion of female justices.” It is unclear how this is not found. Conspicuously, Gleason does not cite either of the classic 1995 feminist books on this topic, Gender Trials or Gender in Practice, or Lindom and colleagues’ (2017) study on the same topic, in either article. The U.S. Supreme Court has never had more than three women members at the same time, and many years of the data used in the oral argument U.S. Supreme Court studies were before any women served in this top court. Also, recall Salerno and Peter-Hagene’s (2015) findings that jury members’ gave angry women jurors less influence and angry men jurors more influence in their deliberations. Taken together, there are obvious sexist expectations in gender performance for women in the legal profession and women jurors, in addition to women’s representation as judges and jury members, that have consequences for jury members, legal professionals, and justice for complainants and defendants. Similar to the research on women working in prisons/jails and in policing, there are some gender differences in performing the job, but they largely indicate better work ethics and responses.

Hiring, Job Placements, Retention, and Attrition: Leaky Pipes and Glass Ceilings Careers for individuals with law degrees are generally distinguished, in order from least to most prestigious and lucrative, into government agencies, corporations, and firms. Government lawyers are state and federal attorneys who “who legislate, resolve disputes, or advise a ministry, department or public entity,” and corporate attorneys are those who “work for banks, insurance companies, trade unions, and other businesses” (D. S. Clark, 2012, p. 366). Importantly, even among the top ranked placement “firms,” not all firms are alike, and they are often divided into “large” and “small” in assessments of lawyers’ representation, income, and success as lawyers. The large law firm is the “elite rank atop the legal professions” and is dominant “both in terms of the number of lawyers affiliated with it and its significant share of the national and global market for legal services” (Wald, 2012b, p. 2867). The legal professionals in law firms are further ranked as partners, who share in the risks and profits of the firm, and associates, the usually more recent hires just out of law school hoping to “make” partner and who have non-equity status. Partners can be further divided into equity and non-equity partners with the latter having more

power, prestige, and pay. In addition to partners and associates, law firms typically have other legal professional stuff such as paralegals (who provide assistance but cannot give legal advice or represent clients), law clerks, and in-house counsel. Inhouse counsel, sometimes simply referred to as “counsel,” “used to evoke negative connotations, associated with failing to make partner, diminished professional status, more clerical and less challenging quality work, and reduced pay” (Wald, 2012a, p. 408). However, these positions are increasingly viewed “not as consolation prizes for failing to make partner but as desirable and prestigious lateral moves offering an attractive mix of professional status, competitive pay, and a better work-life balance” (Wald, 2012a, p. 408). These attorneys are not driven by the dreaded billable hour model (described later in this chapter) nor expected to be “rainmakers” for the firm (Wald, 2012a). Historically, government jobs were often the only lawyer jobs open to women, and they tended (and still tend) to be far better about issues such as maternity leave, child care, and flexible schedules (Katz, 1998), although they did not (and do not) tend to pay nearly as well as private firm jobs (Beinish, 1998; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996), but they do not carry the same level of stress and job commitment. That women are disproportionately overrepresented in government jobs and underrepresented in private firms explains some of the gender income cap among lawyers (Hull & Nelson, 2000; Krakauer & Chen, 2003). Research published in the 1990s reported that women and men do not have equal access to the same practices and ranks; women and lawyers of Color are more likely to end up in the least prestigious lawyer jobs (Epstein, 1998), particularly government and corporate work and even there “are concentrated on the bottom rungs of prestige and income” (S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996, p. 115). Moreover, women continue to be overrepresented in family law and underrepresented in other types of law, such as corporate, commercial, and civil litigation (Hagan, 1990; Hagan & Kay, 1995; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Sommerlad & Sanderson, 1998). In a study of over 200 African American women lawyers, about half were employed in government service, 17% in private practice, 12% in firms, and 12% in nonlegal administrative positions (Simpson, 1996). Nine tenths of the women reported that they were in different practice settings than what they had aspired to during law school. Almost one fifth (18%) of these African American women lawyers reported that being promoted at their jobs required “fitting in” or “being a white male” (Simpson, 1996, p. 180). Additionally, once in their legal jobs, they “felt that their race (36%), sex (35%) or a combination of both (45%), limited their mobility in the organization in which they worked and nearly half (49%) felt that they had not been assigned the types of prestigious cases that lead to promotion” (Simpson, 1996, p. 180). Simpson (1996) concludes that African American women lawyers face a plexiglass ceiling, due to their options “to practice in high status, powerful, and financially remunerative sectors of the [legal] profession” being seriously limited by their race and gender (p. 180). “One irony of this nation’s continuing struggle for diversity and gender equity in employment is that the profession leading the struggle has failed to set an example in its own workplaces”: law firms (Rhode, 2011, p. 1041). A significant amount of legal scholarship addresses women’s reduced likelihood of making partner in their law firms (Epstein, 1998; Graham, 1986; Hagan & Kay, 1995; Hagan et al., 1991; Hull & Nelson, 2000; Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Melaku, 2019; Sommerlad & Sanderson, 1998). Title VII was effective in a 1984 case, Hishon v. King & Spalding, in which Elizabeth Hishon brought a case against a prestigious law firm in Atlanta where she had been denied partnership after working there for seven years (Epstein, 1998; Kaye & Reddy, 2008; Strebeigh, 2009). The court found that partnership decisions in law firms must be fair and are applicable to Title VII. In 1988, women were 8% of partners in big firms and by 2007 women were 16% of partners (Kaye & Reddy, 2008, p. 1945). Although women were a third of lawyers in the United States in 2012, in private practice, women constituted 20% of partners (15% of equity partners), and 45% of associates (American Bar Association, 2013). Table 13.2 provides 2019 statistics on the intersections of gender and race among women in firms, where their representation increased 2% among associates and 4% among partners since 2012: Women are now 24% of partners and 47% of associates. Leadership in firms is a very white men’s job, and among the women, it is

predominantly a white woman’s position. The statistics do not include Native Americans of which, if they are there, are at less than 1%. The name “BigLaw” refers collectively to the largest law firms in the world, which have mostly been in the United States but are becoming more global (Wald, 2014, p. 2510). Expectations, besides incredibly high salaries, include extremely long hours, serving on committees, and attending the firms’ functions (Wald, 2014). BigLaw has been viewed as a serious barrier to increasing the hiring and retention of women and people of Color (L. Jackson, 2016; Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Melaku, 2019; Wald, 2014). Indeed, a recent report stated, “BigLaw is no stranger to the loss of experienced women attorneys…. The number of lawyers named as new equity partners at big firms has declined by nearly 30% over the past several years, and firms are increasingly relying on the hiring of lateral partners, over 70% of whom are men” (Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019, p. i). Table 13.2 ● Gender by Race in Law Firms, 2019a

Women Men Overall

36.3%

63.7%

Partners

24.2%

75.8%

White

87.5

92.9

Asian American

1.5

3.2

African American 0.8

1.6

Latinx

0.8

2.3

Associates

46.8%

53.2%

White

87.5

82.3

Asian American

15.3

9.4

Firm Lawyers

African American 6.0

3.7

Latinx

5.8

4.6

Counsel

36.9%

63.1%

Source: National Association for Law Placement. (2019). 2019 Report on Diversity in U.S. Law Firms (p. 37). https://www.nalp.org/reportondiversity a Race by gender was calculated from data in Tables 1 and 2 of the report. There were no data to calculate gender by race for the counsel role.

Although the numbers of women “making partner” are improving over the years, they are still disproportionately low, particularly for women of Color. Research indicates that women and men are just as likely to start their careers in large (well-paying) firms (e.g., Hull & Nelson, 2000). Given that women have been about half or almost half of law students for some time, then, we would expect that they would make up for more than 20% of partners in 2012. The phenomenon of white men staying in legal careers, particularly in the more prestigious firms and making partner, compared to women and people of Color, is referred to as the “leaky pipeline” (see Kaye & Reddy 2008, 1942–1943). However, others are more likely to use the “glass ceiling” barrier (referred to in the last chapter) than the “leaky pipeline.” The glass ceiling is “an invisible barrier, erected by third parties, that blocks women (and minorities) from reaching the income elite” (Baker, 2003, p. 694). Epstein (1998) states that while ceilings exist in all fields, “they are strongest and most impenetrable in those in which wealth and power are located,” where the dominant groups “typically defend their privileged access by obvious and subtle means, excluding contenders who hope to share their positions in society” (p. 109). The visual is interesting: Are women and people of Color “leaking” out of law firms (and other legal professions) or bumping up against glass ceilings? To what degree do they choose to leave relative to White men? To what degree are they forced out? How does this vary across other characteristics such as race/ethnicity, sexual identity, and so on? One of the problems is that because women are now half to over half of law school students, there is this assumption that everything is now gender equal in the profession and in legal responses to issues like gender-based abuse and gender discrimination. Rhode (1991) refers to this misconception as the “no-problem problem.” This is not to deny the incredible contributions by women lawyers, judges, law professors, and scholars. But studies of the legal profession remain disheartening. Wald (2010) builds on Rhode’s “no-problem” problem, stressing the misguided faith that the “problem” of women and people of Color leaving firms and other legal jobs (e.g., law school faculty) will correct itself in the long run as more of these “outsiders” are in law school and subsequently hired into firms. Kaye and Reddy (2008) describe the law firm exodus or attrition rates of associates (a mid-level status lower than partner) of white women as “high” and of people of Color as “astronomical” (p. 1943). And in at least half of the attrition cases, firms report not wanting the lawyers to leave the firm (Kaye & Reddy, 2008). They believe that women’s disproportionate attrition rate compared to men’s is explained by gender stereotypes (particularly regarding who should work outside of the home and who should take care of their children), flexibility (resistance to part- and flex-time work), and billable hours. Billable hours, a model introduced in the 1960s, became the choice of most law firms by the late 1970s whereby “firms have increased the number of hours attorneys are expected to bill” (Kaye & Reddy 2008, p. 1962). The billable hours model has impacted firm culture and increased the difficulty of “meeting both firm billing minimums and family responsibilities” (p. 1962). And because family responsibilities still land disproportionately in women’s purview among many couples today, billable hours disproportionately affect these women. Understandably, clients are unhappy paying “for first-year associates [recently hired out of law schools], both because they resent being billed for what they perceive to be the training costs of junior associates, and because their needs demand the attention and actual work of senior firm partners” (Wald, 2012b, p. 2889). Liebenberg and Scharf’s (2019) chilly account of senior women leaving long careers in firms reports how this is not only detrimental to the women attorneys, but also for the firms and the clients: A firm’s relationship with the clients of departing women necessarily suffers, and the clients lose valuable and trusted legal advisors who know their business and legal needs. The attrition of experienced women lawyers leaves law firms without a critical mass of senior women who can participate in key leadership roles; creates a dearth of senior women to serve as first

chairs at trial and leads on deals, which clients are increasingly insisting upon in their outside firms; deprives firms of much-needed gender diversity at senior levels; and deprives younger women lawyers of role models and sponsors. (p. i) Melaku’s (2019) recent book, You Don’t Look Like a Lawyer: Black Women and Systemic Gendered Racism, is a study of Black women in the top corporate firms. She introduced two new concepts in this work. The first, the invisible labor clause, refers to the additional work these women must spend navigating White institutional spaces. Melaku’s second concept, the inclusion tax, is the “the additional time, money and emotional and mental energy to be included in white spaces” (p. 3). The corporate law firm is male-dominated and elite, and women and African American men are stymied by restriction from networking practices for advancing their careers, particularly to “make” partner, but this is more acute among African American women. Finally, the most coveted and competitive position of recent law school graduates is a clerkship on the U.S. Supreme Court, which sets up lawyers in an unprecedented manner for arguing a case in front of this court and for subsequent judicial appointments. The first woman U.S. Supreme Court clerk was Lucille Lomen in 1944, and the second wasn’t hired until more than two decades later, in 1966 (Sarver et al., 2007). Although data from 2009 indicates women are well represented among judicial clerkships (51% on average, lowest for federal clerkships [45.6%] and highest for state clerkships [54.8%]) (American Bar Association, 2013, p. 5), U.S. Supreme court data from 1993 to 2001 indicate that women are disproportionately unlikely to argue a case in front of this court (Sarver et al., 2007). Furthermore, women’s participation in presenting to this highest court is not only rare, but most of the U.S. Supreme Court litigation teams, those who do and do not do the oral arguments, “involve very few women” (Sarver et al., 2007, p. 243).

The Gendered Implications of Marital and Family Status for Lawyers Similar to women working in prisons/jails and policing, women in firms seem to be more impacted by being denied promotions than similarly situated men in these jobs because of real or perceived work–family constraints (Hull & Nelson, 2000; Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Melaku, 2019; Sommerlad & Sanderson, 1998). Stated alternatively, are these women “discouraged from staying in these firms” as partners, or fired from being partners because the firms “would not accommodate the flexible work schedules mothers and young children often require” (Sommerlad & Sanderson, 1998, p. 3). Sommerlad and Sanderson (1998, p. 3), however, argue that the idea of lawyers’ “commitment to work” is “itself gendered” because the data rarely ask of men’s commitment to their home, children, and personal lives. Noonan and Corcoran’s (2004) study of University of Michigan Law School graduates 20 years later found that men are more likely than women to become partners, to stay in private practice, and to be married. Among the parents in this group of alums, 1% of fathers and 42% of mothers took a leave from work to care for children, and regardless of gender, lawyers who took leave to attend to child-care responsibilities were less likely to become partner, and if they became partner, earned less than the firm partners who did not take child-care leaves (Noonan & Corcoran 2004). A study comparing men and women lawyers of Color beginning their first post–law school job found that while no gender differences existed in their likelihood of being married or having children, the women were far more likely than the men to be part of a “dual career” marriage (Merritt & Reskin, 1992). A longitudinal study following University of Virginia Law School graduates for two decades found women (39%) were more likely than men (1%) “to interrupt or forego full-time employment, mainly in order to care for children,” and women (77%) were also more likely than men (24%) to have a partner/spouse who worked full-time outside of the home (Monahan & Swanson, 2009, p. 451). Yet, there were no gender differences regarding the samples’ satisfaction with their decisions to become lawyers. A recent study of married lawyers working in law firms also found that that women’s increased representation in law firms results in better communications and

emotional support for both women and men lawyers, yet the improved gender balance of these organizations “does little to shift the expectation stakes associated with women lawyers and the professional disadvantage women face when they have family responsibilities” (J. E. Wallace & Kay, 2012, p. 389). Cunningham (2001) effectively demonstrates the gendered nature of lawyers requesting family leave from their firms: “Thus for a woman, the double-bind is external and obvious; if she is a good lawyer, she must be a bad mother, or vice versa. She can only be a successful lawyer at the expense of her children, and she is often seen as failing on both fronts” (p. 887). Cunningham also describes the growing generation of men attorneys who are fathers and would prefer to spend more time with their children but who understand, like women lawyers, how such requests will label them as not sufficiently committed to their law firms. He describes Kevin Knussman’s request for 12 weeks of paternity leave from his law firm when his wife was suffering from medical complications from childbirth. Indeed, Knussman became the first man to win a gender bias claim under the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (a federal bill that entitles workers to 12 weeks of paid leave for family childbirth, adoption, illness, or elder care)/ The national press presented Knussman as a “poster” parent and “folk hero” (Cunningham, 2001), something for which women professionals are never lauded when they prioritize family over work. After successfully suing, however, Knussman’s firm required him to take a psychiatric exam before he could return to work, giving the retributive message that “any man who goes to such lengths to put family above work must have some sort of mental defect” (Cunningham, 2001, p. 968). The good news is that more firms are becoming “friendlier” to allowing lawyers to take time off or reduced time when their children are young, and then return (Kaye & Reddy, 2008, p. 1943). But one study concluded that large U.S. law firms who offer more childbearing/childrearing leave to mothers than fathers institutionalize stereotypes of who should parent and who should work outside of the home (Young, 2009). “The logical ripple effect is that women cannot assume equivalency to men in their career pursuits—not just legal careers—until men assume equivalency in the care of [family] responsibilities” (Kaye & Reddy 2008, 1954). And as Liebenberg and Scharf (2019) point out, firms need make a serious investment in learning how to change the sexist climate, especially in BigLaw or they will continue to be drained of qualified senior women. The next step is far more complex: determining whether differential placements of women and men of Color in these prestigious, higher paying firms is due more to what they “want” or what they “get.” For example, are women and men of Color more prevalent in non-firm jobs because that is what they want, or is it because they are not hired into the more prestigious and higher paying firm jobs? Or is it some institutionalized combination; for example, are women (and men of Color) more likely than (White) men to resist firm/partner jobs because they are more likely to want to be actively involved in parenting children they have or plan to have and recognize this is not valued in most firms? These are not easy distinctions to determine with the current research. And is it only lawyers who are parents of young/dependent children who are resistant to long hours, billable models, and so on? Might there also be some childless or empty nest attorneys that also choose not to spend all or some of their careers more dedicated to their professional than their personal lives? Likely, some women, men of Color, and even white men are redefining what working at a firm should take and refuse to work the model of the firms with significant financial rewards but at too large of a personal cost.

Gendered Income Gaps The gendered income gap among lawyers has been an issue for centuries (Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019; Norgren, 2018; J. E. Wallace & Kay, 2012). In part this is due to women choosing or being forced into government and non-firm jobs that pay less, women being more likely to take time off for childbearing and childrearing, and men’s increased likelihood to be in firms, prestigious firms, and to make partners, and

be equity partners. Regarding job placement, a study found the size of the law firm is positively related to the income, the benefits, and the perceived opportunities for both women and men (Wallace & Kay, 2009). Studies that control for many factors still find men earn significantly more than women. A study that followed a cohort of University of Michigan Law School graduates found men earn more than women, even when controlling for the number of years in practice and other relevant variables (Noonan & Corcoran 2004). A study following University of Virginia Law School graduates over two decades found that the best predictors of salary were “law school GPA, hours worked in prior week, working in a large private law firm, working in the business/financial sector, and being male” (Monahan & Swanson 2009, p. 469). Or stated alternatively: “Women earn significantly less than men, even controlling for employment setting, hours worked and many other factors” (Monahan & Swanson, 2009, p. 481). American Bar Association (2013, 2018) reports on lawyers’ income (measured as weekly salary) shows that women’s income as a percentage of men’s ranged from 70.5% to 89.7% between 2004 and 2016, but for the more recently available year, 2016, women’s pay was 77.6% of men’s (American Bar Association, 2018). The most recent data, from the 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicate that in 2019, women lawyers made 63.3% of men’s income; among law clerks, women made 85.3% of what male law clerks made.1 In sum, among lawyers’ income, from 2004 to 2019, women’s percent of men’s reached or exceeded 80% for only three years (2011, 2014, and 2015), with the highest percentage, 89.7%, in 2015. 1 The author calculated this from the 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm. Male lawyers’ median weekly earnings were $1,999 and female lawyers’ were $1,266. Men clerks’ median weekly earnings were $2,202 and women’s were $1,878. These statistics do not control for other variables, but one would think that there would not be much difference for law clerks, who are typically fairly young/new to law.

Mentoring and Job Satisfaction Finally, a discussion of promotion, pay, and other perks for attorneys would be remiss in leaving out the role of mentoring. Some of the research on the gendered nature of advancement in the legal profession attributes the lack of women’s success in the legal profession to the gendered nature of mentoring by more senior attorneys, specifically that men receive more and better mentoring from senior attorneys than do women (e.g., Hagan & Kay 1995; Sommerlad & Sanderson 1998). In Simpson’s (1996) study of African American women lawyers, some of the women also reported lack of mentors and lack of cases assigned to develop a specialty, something that was necessary to make partner in most firms. Even though men are more likely than women to be in large (prestigious and high-paying) law firms, and a recent study found that being in a large firm increases the likelihood of associates being mentored, this same study found, unexpectedly, that women were far more likely than men to report having mentors (Wallace & Kay, 2012). Women’s greater likelihood of mentoring was attributed to their being (1) more clustered in the lower hierarchical positions (i.e., junior partners or associates), who are more likely to have mentors, and (2) more likely to request mentors. Given the sexism that women have faced and, to some extent, continue to face in legal professions, it is surprising that there are few gender differences in job satisfaction among lawyers (see F. Kay & Gorman, 2008, for a review). The study following graduates of the University of Virginia Law school two decades after graduation found that some of the same factors that predicted high income also predicted life (as opposed to job) dissatisfaction. More specifically, the lawyers unhappy with their personal lives worked more hours per week, worked in large private law firms, and worked in the business/financial sector (Monahan & Swanson, 2009, p. 477). Notably, one study found that although women lawyers mentored by men earned more money than women lawyers mentored by women, the latter reported “more career satisfaction, more intent to continue practicing law, professional expectations that were met to a greater degree, and less work–nonwork

conflict than those women who were mentored by men” (J. E. Wallace, 2001, p. 366). T. A. Collins and colleagues’(2017) study of 2,000 lawyers found gender-race job satisfaction gaps were most extreme among the newer (early career) attorneys, with White men as most satisfied and women of Color most dissatisfied. They concluded that “relative inexperience, as a marker of difference, does not equally impact all groups” and may also be an explanation for the leaky pipeline being gendered and raced (p. 1654). The recent study on senior women in BigLaw firms found that 5% of men and 21% of women were “somewhat” or “extremely” dissatisfied with their jobs, and this was most apparent in receiving recognition for their work, compensation for their work, the compensation methods, opportunities for advancement, workplace gender diversity, firm leadership, and performance evaluation processes (Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019). There were no gender differences in the intellectual challenge of work, their substantive work area, work tasks, levels of responsibility, relationships with colleagues, skill-building opportunities, control over amount of work, the value of their work to society, pro bono opportunities, the amount of travel required, job security and, surprisingly, work–life balance (Liebenberg & Scharf, 2019).

The Gendered Nature of Sanctions Against Lawyers A study of the 325 disciplinary cases involving lawyers practicing in the Commonwealth of Virginia found 90% of the sanctioned lawyers were men (Payne, Time, & Raper, 2004). Of those attorneys charged, women (11%) were less likely than men (22%) to be accused of “failing to maintain the integrity of the profession” (Payne et al., 2004, p. 90). Men attorneys were more likely than women attorneys “to be sanctioned for being convicted of a crime,” whereas women attorneys were more likely than men attorneys “to be sanctioned for failing to comply with previous bar decisions and for failing to show fairness to opposing party and counsel” (Payne et al., 2004, pp. 90, 91). Whereas there were no gender differences in the sanctions given to the charged attorneys, women were suspended for far more time (average 808 days) than men (average 456 days) (Payne et al., 2004).

WOMEN JUDGES “Since they first entered the legal profession in the nineteenth century, women, like their male colleagues, spired to judicial positions” (Norgren, 2018, p. 13), but most states did not allow women’s eligibility for elective judgeships until 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment (women’s suffrage) was passed (B. B. Cook, 1978; Flowers, 1987). The first woman to win a judicial election was Catharine McCulloch in 1907 (Norgren, 2018). In 1922, Florence Ellinwood Allen was the first woman to serve on a state (Ohio) supreme court, and in 1934 she was the first woman to serve as a federal appeals judge (Abrahamson, 1998; Norgren, 2013, 2018). “Allen’s fellow judges greeted the former prosecutor with the suggestion that she confine her judging exclusively to domestic disputes. Allen, who never married, turned down the suggestion, saying that, unlike her brethren, she lacked sufficient expertise in the domestic domain” (Ginsburg & Brill, 1995, p. 282). The first women judges did not preside over a criminal court (Feinman, 1985; Flowers, 1987). Predictably, when women were first elected or appointed judges, it was frequently to judgeship roles consistent with stereotyped gender roles, especially “family law,” divorce courts, juvenile courts, and the lower municipal courts. Fewer than 200 women served on state courts in the United States in 1971 (Berkson, 1982). The first woman appointed to a federal bench was in 1934 and “only eight women had ever sat on the federal bench” by 1976, when Jimmy Carter was elected president. Women judges made up only 1% of federal judges (Epstein, 1983) until President Carter made “a concerted effort to diversify the bench by seeking out and appointing women and members of ethnic minorities” (Abrahamson, 1998, p. 197), and appointed 40 women to the federal bench in his 4 years in office (E. Martin, 2009), more than Reagan and Bush did together in their 12 years in office (Abrahamson, 1998). One of them was Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Remarkably, it was not

until 1979 that all states had at least one woman serving in some judicial capacity (Abrahamson, 1998; Berkson, 1982). Constance Baker Motley was the first African American woman federal judge, appointed by President L. B. Johnson in 1996 (Blackburne-Rigsby, 2009). In the 1940s, Motley, the second African American woman to attend Columbia University, was active in many important civil rights cases, working with Thurgood Marshall and serving as counsel to the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. A brief biography of Motley states: “Three separate incidents of racial discrimination while in high school were probably the cause of her active participation in civil rights groups at an early age” (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, 1968, p. 19). Her autobiography is an important historical account of civil rights litigation and a powerful portrayal of the intersection of sexism with racism in Motley’s personal and professional life. Further, it is a carefully written account of the current state of racism, classism, and sexism in the United States (see Motley, 1998). Similar to what has been written about Motley, over their lives, many of the early African American women judges were dedicated to social justice and equality, and experienced considerable economic hardship, racism, and sexism (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, 1968). In 1960, Mercedes Deiz, an activist in both civil and women’s rights, was the first African American woman admitted to the bar in Oregon (Dilg, 2012). In 1970, Deiz was also the first woman African American judge in the entire Pacific Northwest. She had worked as a maid, in a movie theatre, and as a clerk, was the only woman in her class at Northwestern School of Law, graduated at the top of her class in 1959, and tried her first case three days after passing the bar (Dilg, 2012, p. 365). Deiz was a judge until 1992 when she was forced to retire due to her age; she was 72 years old (Dilg, 2012). Deborah A. Batts (1947–2020) was the first openly gay federal judge when she was sworn in as a U.S. district judge in 1994. Batts is famous for saying at the time, “I’m a mother. I’m an African American. I’m a lesbian” (Associated Press, 2020). Batts graduated from Radcliffe College in 1969 and Harvard Law School in 1972. She went on to clerk for a U.S. district court judge and to become an associate in a prestigious New York City law firm, which she left in 1979 to work as an assistant U.S. attorney. She was known for a being a mentor to many other lawyers and supporting rehabilitation/reentry (Associated Press, 2020; C. E. Neumann, 2015). “The numbers of women and minority judges continue to be much lower than the number of white male judges” (Solberg & Bratton, 2005, p. 120). Once women began being appointed to judicial positions in any meaningful numbers, there was a tendency to tokenize them and not see a need for more (Palmer, 2001). Interestingly, women are more successful when running for election to be a judge than being appointed to a judicial position (Palmer, 2001). In 1991, Minnesota became the first state with a majority of women on its highest court, with four women among the seven justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court (Abrahamson, 1998, p. 196). Purvis (2018) identifies women’s disproportionate amount of home and child-care responsibilities, and more limited access to taking part in prosecutions and making partner, as barriers to becoming judges. More specifically, most judges are selected from firms where they made partner or from prosecution jobs, jobs which are known to have long, inflexible hours (Purvis, 2018). Abrahamson (1998), drawing on various publications, estimated that women constituted about 10% of federal district court judges and 13% of federal circuit court judges (pp. 196–197). “At the end of the Clinton administration [2001], only 14.5% of district court judges and 14.9% of circuit court judges were women” (Palmer, 2001, p. 95). The most recent data indicate that women were 34% of U.S. state court judges in 2019, with the highest representation in state intermediate appellate courts (39%) and lowest in state limited and special jurisdiction courts (Figure 13.1). Table 13.3 summarizes 2019 data on federal court judges (other than the U.S. Supreme Court), and unlike the state judgeships, the gender and race intersectional data were available. Women had similar representation in these, 34% of federal district court judges and 37% of circuit court of appeals judges were women. There

was more racial diversity among the men in both types of federal judges. The representation of Native American judges was less than a half percent.

Description

Figure 13.1 ● Representation of Women Judges in U.S. State Courts in 2019 Sources: Data from The American Bench 2019, Forster-Long, LLC https://www.nawj.org/statistics/2019-us-state-court-women-judges. Note: N is the total number of women judges. Table 13.3 ● U.S. Federal District and Circuit Court Judges in 2017 by Gender and Racea

Women Men Federal District Courtb (N = 570)

34.0%

66.0%

White

74.2%

65.2%

Black/African American

12.2%

18.2%

Latinx

9.8%

11.0%

Asian American

2.4%

3.6%

Native American

0.3%

0.0%

Multiracial

1.1%

2.1%

Circuit Court of Appealsc (N = 160) 36.9%

63.1%

Women Men White

79.7%

72.4%

Black/African American

11.9%

13.8%

Latinx

6.8%

9.8%

Asian American

1.6%

4.0%

Native American

—

—

Multiracial

—

—

a

These are based on active judges; at the time of this report there were 19 vacancies on the circuit court of appeals and 103 judicial vacancies in the federal district courts. Source: Data from McMillion, B. J. (2017, August 1). U.S. Circuit and District Court Judges: Profile of Select Characteristics (CRS Report No. R43426). Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43426.pdf. Percentages were calculated using Figures 4 and 12.

The first woman and 102nd justice appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At that time, women made up about 5% of both state and federal court judges (Morello, 1986). Notably, despite graduating at the top of her class at Stanford Law School (and finishing law school in just two years) at the age of 20, O’Connor was unable to even get an interview at a law firm (Feerick, O’Connor, & Kaye, 2012). Though a Republican and conservative, she surprised many liberals and conservatives with flashes of independent voting, inconsistent with many conservatives. O’Connor served 24 years as a U.S. Supreme Court justice until she stepped down in 2005 to retire. She is still an advocate for lawyers doing volunteer work in their communities, with health care, educational, and other groups (Feerick et al., 2012, p. 1160). To date, there have been four women on the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to Sandra Day O’Connor (1981–2005), presently Ruth Bader Ginsberg (since 1993), Sonia Sotomayor (since 2009), and Elena Kagan (since 2010) serve on this highest court in the United States, making it one-third women. All of the chief justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have been white men.

LOOKING FOR GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JUDGES’ DECISION-MAKING The introduction to this chapter asked whether there are gender differences in attorneys’ decision making, with the expected focus on judges rendering verdicts and sentences. Recall F. Kay and Gorman’s (2008) two theories attempting to explain the assumed gender differences in judges’ and lawyers’ behaviors and decisions: the feminist consciousness and the different moral voice theories. However, a number of scholars question whether a gender difference in judges’ decision making should be assumed or expected when women judges (1) have typically been drawn from the same race (White), class (wealthy), and elite law schools as the men who have historically constituted the bench (Feenan, 2008; Fox & Van Sickel, 2000; F. Kay & Gorman, 2008; S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996; Rackley, 2007; Wilson, 1992), and (2) are expected to follow the same laws and legal precedents as men judges that are based on Anglo-Saxon law, which is inevitably sexist, racist, and classist (Berns, 1999).

Despite the focus on questioning whether women judge differently as a consequence of feminist consciousness and/or a different voice, most of the research on judicial decision making finds few or no gender differences (both genders are most influenced by legal variables, such as the seriousness of the offense, the prior record, and the evidence). Most research finding gender differences report it as nuanced (Bonneau & Rice, 2009; Laster & Douglas, 1995; E. Martin, 2009). Still, this does not mean that women judges do not make a difference. Some scholars suggest that women’s presence on a judicial panel or among the judges makes men judges more likely to address their own sexist beliefs, consciously or not (P. M. Collins, Manning, & Carp, 2010; E. Martin, 2009), and Strebeigh’s (2009) excellent book Equal: Women Reshape American Law provides rich examples. E. Martin (2009) stated about her research on some of the women judges appointed by President Carter, “One of the reasons why more gender differences in judicial decisions have not been found is that women judges, either by their mere presence or through their efforts of persuasion, cause their male colleagues to vote with them” (p. 50). When there are gender differences in judges’ decisions and behaviors, it is typically that women are more “liberal” (less punitive) than men. Gender differences also vary according to the type of court (e.g., criminal, civil, etc.), the type of offense (e.g., sexual abuse), and the judges’ race/ethnicity, party affiliation, and years on the bench. For example, a study published in 2000 reported that among judges, women are more likely than men to “side” with the prosecution/district attorney, while men are more likely to “side” with the defense (Fox & Van Sickel, 2000). Yet, regardless of their own gender, judges used stern (masculine) and compassionate (feminine) words and tones in processing cases (Fox & Van Sickel, 2000). Fox and Van Sickel (2000) identified four judicial styles from previous research and attempted to determine whether these styles were gendered. Two of the four styles were identified as “masculine” styles by the authors (the procedural and authoritarian styles), and two were deemed “feminine” (the consensual and inclusive styles). The “feminine” inclusive style, characterized by soliciting input from all parties and ensuring that everyone is heard, was exhibited more often by women than men judges. It is difficult to distinguish from the “feminine” consensus style, where the judge solicits information from everyone to try to find a “middle ground,” which was exhibited more by the men judges. The men judges were also more likely to employ the “masculine” authoritarian style, where the judge dictates the courtroom without input from all parties, typically quickly disposing of cases and using a “patronizing or belittling tone” (p. 268). However, the women judges were more likely to employ the “masculine” procedural style, characterized by strict adherence to laws and procedures, often rejecting options suggested by attorneys (Fox & Van Sickel, 2000, p. 268). A study of trial judges’ decisions in over 30,000 felony cases found that the only gender differences were that, compared to men judges, women judges were less likely to find defendants guilty overall and more likely to send women defendants to prison (Gruhl et al., 1981). Perhaps the women judges felt pressure to appear to be not “siding” with defendants of their own sex. Another study found the higher the proportion of women judges in a district, the less the disparity (chivalrous sentencing) between women and men defendants’ sentences; stated alternatively, “the greater the proportion of female judges on the district’s bench, the longer the sentences received by female offenders” (Schanzenbach, 2005, p. 74). The significant authority endowed and associated with being a judge, combined with authority being associated with masculinity, could place women judges, particularly the pioneering ones, in the “double bind” of focusing on their job and minimizing their gender (Bonthuys, 2008). Unlike most judicial studies reporting women judges as more lenient than men judges, a 1999 Pennsylvania study found that women are about 10% more likely than men to incarcerate defendants, and they impose sentences about five months longer (Steffensmeier & Hebert, 1999). This difference in incarceration and sentence length was most pronounced for property offenders (Steffensmeier & Hebert, 1999, p. 1182). Perhaps most surprising in this study was the finding that although there were no gender differences in judges’ decisions when the defendants were white women, women judges were harsher than men judges when the defendants were African American women, African American men, and white men. And women judges were particularly harsher than men judges when the

defendants were repeat African American offenders (Steffensmeier & Hebert, 1999, p. 1182). Some studies indicate women are more likely to influence the outcome in more “liberal” ways. An overview of the research on gender differences in judicial sex discrimination cases found “women judges are more supportive of women’s claims than men judges, regardless of their ideology” (Palmer, 2001, p. 91). McCall’s (2005) study of judicial decisions in 170 police brutality dispositions in 47 state courts from 1990 to 2000 found that regardless of whether elected or appointed, women judges were more likely than men judges to vote “liberal” (a vote for the person brutalized by the police or a department suspending an officer for police brutality). Furthermore, regardless of gender, appointed judges were more likely than elected judges to vote “conservative” (a vote for the police officer charged with excessive force/brutality). F. Kay and Gorman’s (2008) judicial research review claims that women are more likely than men to make decisions that favor women. A study of the sexual harassment and sex discrimination Title VII cases decided by U.S. federal courts of appeals from 1999 to 2001, although the plaintiffs lost in almost three quarters of the cases, “the presence of a female judge significantly increased the probability that the plaintiff would prevail” (Peresie, 2005, pp. 1768–1769). Controlling for such factors as judges’ ages, prior employment, political ideology, and so on, if the judges in these cases were women, the probability of siding with the plaintiff increased by 86% in sexual harassment cases and by 65% in sex discrimination cases (p. 1776). Moreover, the data indicated that “male judges decided with their female colleagues rather than against them” (p. 1769) and that “male judges were more likely to find for plaintiffs when at least one female judge was on the panel” (p. 1778). Indeed, “serving with a female judge had more than 1.5 times the effect on a male judge of being appointed by a Democrat” (p. 1778). Thus, this study concludes “that female judges mattered to outcomes on Title VII sexual harassment and sex discrimination cases” (p. 1786). A study of judicial decisions in Colorado on marijuana possession found the only gendered pattern was that women judges sentence women defendants less harshly than men judges do (Boyd & Nelson, 2017). S. W. Johnson, Stidham, Carp, and Manning (2008), in their study of almost 40,000 federal district court cases, found the judges’ party affiliation distinguished their decision making far more than their gender. Judges’ decisions were unrelated to gender for employee versus employer cases, but for women’s rights, Fourteenth Amendment, and privacy cases, women Democrats were the most liberal, followed by men Democrats, women Republicans, and finally, men Republicans (S. W. Johnson et al., 2008). Using this same large data set, P. M. Collins and his colleagues (2010) found women judges “exhibit distinctive behavior in cases when there is a critical mass of women” (p. 260); that is, when they serve on the bench with other women, they more consistently deliver more liberal (less punitive) sentences. Gender differences are most pronounced in criminal cases, with modest gender differences in civil rights and liberties cases and no gender differences in labor and economic regulation cases. “Thus, the presence of more women on the bench in specific locales could have significant policy ramifications throughout the world” (p. 275). Few studies have been conducted on judicial decision-making control for the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity. An exception is B. D. Johnson’s (2006) research, which found no gender differences in Pennsylvania judges’ decisions until Johnson controlled for gender, race, and class: Younger, White men judges sentenced more harshly than older, women of Color judges. A study on U.S. Courts of Appeals cases found that the judges were more likely to side with women than men attorneys, regardless of whether the case was a “woman’s issue” (Szmer et al., 2013). However, circuit judges were less likely to support women than men attorneys in cases where the circuit reverses a lower court, “indicating a notable disadvantage for female advocates in the very cases in which advocacy might be most crucial at the circuit court level” (Szmer et al., 2013, p. 72). Boyd and colleagues’ (2010) study of the federal appellate courts found of 13 case types, judges’ gender only impacted Title VII sex discrimination cases: Male judges were 10% less likely to rule on behalf of the party alleging discrimination. There were no gender differences based on judges’ gender among abortion, Affirmative Action, disability, campaign finance, capital punishment, the contract clause (of the U.S.

Constitution), environmental protection (EPA), federalism, Title VII race discrimination, sexual harassment, the takings clause (of the U.S. Constitution), and piercing the corporate veil2 cases. This study also found for cases when there was a panel of judges, when at least one woman was on a panel, men were more likely rule on behalf of the litigant (Boyd et al., 2010). 2 “Piercing the corporate veil” is when courts hold corporate directors or shareholders responsible by putting aside limited liability. Supreme Court justices’ assignments to write opinions can have significant impacts on decisions and policies. An insightful study of all 50 states examined the three ways that state supreme courts can administer the justices’ writing the opinions: randomized, discretionary, or rotated assignments (Christensen et al., 2012). Rotation-based assignments promoted the most gender and race equality in distributing opinion writing among justices, and discretionary assignment was the most biased, particularly when controlling for salience (high importance, high-profile, high-impact): Black men judges received disproportionately fewer salient writing assignments, and White women judges received disproportionately more nonsalient writing assignments (Christensen et al., 2012).3 3 Unfortunately, on two levels, there were too few Black women judges to do statistical analysis on them (R. K. Christensen, personal communication, July 9, 2013). Finally, women judges have been key on the world stage with “critical roles in shaping international law relating to gender-based violence through their participation in international tribunals” (O’Connor & Azzarelli, 2011, p. 7). Judge Florence Mumba of the High Court of Zambia has served on domestic and international tribunals in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Cambodia. Women and in the citizenry of various countries are vital to sustainable growth and development, but they must “have adequate access to justice and basic human rights, including a life free from violence” (O’Connor & Azzarelli, 2011, p. 9).

WOMEN LAW PROFESSORS One avenue to becoming a lawyer is apprenticing with a lawyer. “The first women to instruct law students were practitioners who accepted women to study in their law office” in the late 1800s (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 5). Women’s barriers to faculty positions in law schools have been even greater than the barriers they faced in practicing law (S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996), such that their presence was “minuscule … in legal education during the first half of the twentieth century” (H. H. Kay, 2002, p. 337). Their “teaching and service functions were viewed as more appropriate to women since they connoted caregiving—the activity that women were involved in in the private sphere. Women were not associated with the masculine image of scholar” (Monopoli, 2014, p. 3). For law schools to reach stature, they need to be approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) and be a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). By 1945 only three women held (or had held) tenure or tenure-track appointments in ABA-approved and AALS member schools (H. H. Kay, 1991). The first woman appointed to a tenure-track position at an ABA/AALS law school was Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong in 1922 at UC-Berkeley, where she was tenured in 1929 and promoted to full professor in 1932 (H. H. Kay, 1991, pp. 5–6). The second woman, Harriet Daggett, was appointed to a tenure-track position at Louisiana State University law school in 1927 and awarded tenure in 1930 and promoted to full professor in 1930 (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 6). The third woman in a tenure-track position at an ABA/ALSS law school was Margaret Harris Amsler at Baylor University in 1941 (H. H. Kay, 1991). The first known African American woman law professor in a tenured or tenure-track position, Sybil Marie Jones Dedmond, began teaching in 1951 at North Carolina Central Law School (which was neither ABA-approved nor an AALS member) (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 9). In 1971, Joyce Hughes became the first African American woman tenure-track law professor at a predominantly White law

school, the University of Minnesota Law School, and she described the experience (she was the only person of Color on the faculty) as “horrendous” (Vaughns, 2003, pp. 487–498). She is currently a professor of law at Northwestern University. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not only the second woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, in 1963 she “was the nineteenth woman in the U.S. to be appointed to a tenure or tenure-track member of the law faculty” at an ABA/ALSS law school (Rutgers) and Columbia University’s first tenured woman law professor in 1972 (H. H. Kay, 2004, p. 2). From 1945 to 1965 there was a “slow but steady growth” of women law professors in the United States (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 8). There was a dramatic increase in the number of women law professors from 1970 to 1990. The first time the yearly hiring of women law professors hit double digits in the United States was 1970, when 15 women law professors were hired (H. H. Kay, 1991). With a boon in the demand for legal services in 1970, the AALS “created a powerful new incentive to hire women law professors,” and in 1972 the Title VII amendment of the Civil Rights Act was passed (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 12). The significant barriers that were “removed or ameliorated” resulted in unprecedented hiring of women faculty (H. H. Kay, 2002, p. 333). Many of the women law students and professors were encouraged by other women peers and mentors to think of themselves as “a lawyer first, and a woman second” (H. H. Kay, 1991, p. 13). It is also important to remember that many of the women law faculty in the 1970s had no mentors and were the “one” woman faculty in their law schools (H. H. Kay, 1991, 2002). By the late 1980s, women constituted about 25% of full-time law faculty (S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996, p. 122), and by 2002 they were 35% (H. H. Kay, 2004, p. 6). It is surprisingly difficult to find current data on the representation of women among law school faculty. A 1990 study reported that although significant numbers of women became professors in law schools in the 1980s, they faced considerable “difficulty in securing tenure” and the “dearth of tenured female faculty is the most acute problem affecting women in legal education” (Tobias, 1990, p. 1144, 1145). Some of these early women professors in law schools were punished in their tenure decisions because of doing research on such “unconventional” scholarship as sexual harassment, intimate partner abuse and sexual assault, and such “soft” scholarship as family law (Tobias, 1990, pp. 1150– 1151). The law school work environment has been has been identified as particularly inhospitable to women of Color faculty (L. S. Greene, 1997; Grillo, 1997; H. H. Kay, 2002; Merritt & Reskin, 1992; Vaughns, 2003). Merritt and Reskin (1992) reported that women of Color law faculty “enter teaching at lower ranks, teach at less prestigious schools, and are more likely to teach low-status courses” (p. 2322). They also claimed that “law schools, especially the most prestigious schools, could hire more minority women if they were willing to hire them on the same basis as they hire minority men” (p. 2356). In the edited book Critical Race Feminism, published in 1997, numerous pioneering African American women law professors stress their tokenized positions, contributions, and struggles. L. S. Greene (1997), a law professor starting in 1978, describes the intense hostility she faced from students and colleagues alike: “Tokenism masks racism and sexism by committing a small number of previously excluded individuals to institutions. At the same time, a system of tokenism maintains barriers of entry to others. Tokenism is therefore a symbolic equality” (p. 89). Banks (1997) points out how African American women professors’ experiences as African American women in a White-male-dominated society provide a necessary perspective in law classes and legal academics, and A. L. Allen (1997) emphasizes that African American women need to be hired not just because they serve as role models for African American women law students but because they hold the potential for a significant contribution to the study of law.

SUMMARY This chapter summarized women’s advent into becoming lawyers and judges and working in the field of law. The chapter also addressed the topic of women on juries. Although women’s entry into legal practice differed in many respects from their entry into the less prestigious criminal legal system (CLS) work of prison/jail guards and

policing, there are also similarities. Specifically, women have faced significant sexist hurdles in their efforts to be on juries, attend law school, practice law, serve as judges, and work as law professors. And these hurdles have been seriously compounded for women of Color.

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure The x axis on this stacked graph shows four types of courts and the total state court judges. The y axis shows percentages from 0 to 100% in intervals of 10. The stacked bar at each of the five categories described show the percentages of men and women judges in each court. These percentages as seen on the graph are tabulated below:

Court

Percentage of men judges

Percentage of women judges

State general jurisdiction courts

64

36

State limited and special jurisdiction courts (N = 1,767)

69

31

State intermediate appellate jurisdiction courts (N = 377)

61

39

State final appellate jurisdiction (Supreme) courts (N = 124)

64

36

Total state court judges

66

34

Note: N is the total number of women judges.

PART V CONCLUSIONS Chapter 14 Effecting Change

14 EFFECTING CHANGE If we want to eradicate sexual violence, we must transform the apparatuses by which boys are subjectified into toxically masculine men. —Posadas (2017, p. 178)

A growing number of formerly incarcerated women and men are speaking up and becoming politically active on their own behalf. Faced with impediments to reuniting with children, attaining gainful employment, and accessing affordable housing and social services, many of these individuals have organized against regressive policies and government and employment regulations. —López-Garza (2016, p. 84)

This concluding chapter summarizes and describes recent innovations in theory, methods, and practice that relate to gender and crime, particularly for women, girls, and, to a lesser extent, trans/nonbinary people. This is the first edition of this book for which there has been sufficient scholarship on trans/nonbinary people, and although there is still limited work in this area, it has grown immensely since the previous edition was published. Trans/nonbinary identities are closely intertwined with gender and sexuality. Although this book has not fully incorporated cis normativity, the “hierarchical system of power that structures legal, administrative, and policing systems, [which] produces the ‘hypervisibility’ of gender variance” (Collier & Daniel, 2019, p. e12666), it is hoped the reader appreciates the significance of including it when addressing gender, sexism, and crime. Writing this edition, I am disheartened how much our criminal legal system (CLS) still too often fails victims, offenders, and those who have attempted to be good CLS workers, such as prison/jail workers, police, lawyers, and judges. But it is also important to remember not to essentialize and that there are many people working in and outside of the CLS to implement innovative and effective changes. Ideally, this chapter offers some hope about and solutions to the existing problems, although it also (re)identifies some of the existing problems and frustrations. The three main areas of this book (i.e., offending, victimization, and working in the CLS) overlap. Victimization is a risk factor for offending, offending is a risk factor for victimization, responses by CLS actors are intended to advance justice, which they can, but they have also been found to be perpetrators for further injustices. Moreover, women working in the CLS have historically and continue to face significant resistance and hostility, including sexual harassment and gender discrimination in pay and promotion. Front and center to this chapter, indeed this book, is anti-carceral feminism or abolitionist feminism, the growing movement of feminist criminologists and/or activists who resist using the CLS and punitive responses as the sole or main response to crime (Brubaker, 2019; Bumiller, 2008; Dasgupta, 2004; Durfee & Goodmark, 2019; Goodmark, 2018; M. E. Kim, 2019; S. L. Miller & Iovanni, 2013; Richie, 2012; Whalley, 2019; Whalley & Hackett, 2017). Brubaker’s (2019) recent study of campus Title IX victim advocates (primarily for sexual abuse survivors), perhaps summarizes it best describing how advocates’ “mixed allegiances to both the institution and to feminist ideals of survivor empowerment produce conflicts and identify needs for system advocacy” (p. 307). Thus, deterring victimization and offending, as well as enhancing a more just experience for victims and offenders, requires a significantly different, broader, and less punitive approach. Regarding gender-based abuse (GBA) responses, M. E. Kim (2020) calls this shifting the lens of responses: “[To] expand gender-based violence remedies beyond individualized direct services and law enforcement remedies, anti-violence providers have struggled to redefine and redirect intervention approaches” (n.p.). Similarly, others advocate for an ecological

approach to address interventions deterring intimate partner abuse (IPA) (Beyer et al., 2015; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). To accomplish this and what most other abolitionist/anti-carceral feminists pursue, requires an ecological model that includes the individual and all of the other forces that define police, guards, judges, and other CLS workers, and define and process victims and offenders within communities, systems, and structures that are often far too punitive, unjust, and fraught with sexism, racism, classism, cis normativity, homophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and other intersecting oppressions. Figure 14.1 shows an ecological model of victimization, offending, and working in the CLS. At the most basic level is the individual, who is victimized, offends (or is wrongly processed as offending), and/or works in the CLS. Individual traits can enhance one’s resiliency to or risks for offending, victimization, and entry into and experiences in CLS occupations. For example, individuals, including children, who are Black or Brown, have mental illness, and/or live in poverty are more likely to end up in the CLS as offenders and victims. Turning to the next component of the ecological model, family, children with supportive healthy families are less at risk for offending and victimization. Notably, “healthy families” do not require middle-class or wealthier parents; indeed, wealthy parents do not guarantee adequate parenting. Nor do they require two biological parents, or even two parents. Another example of family impacting individuals’ experiences is the finding in previous chapters that women working in the CLS who have supportive healthy families/partners are more likely to be able to pursue promotions and work–life balance.

Description

Figure 14.1 ● An Ecological Model of Victimization, Offending, and Working in the Criminal Legal System (CLS): Contributors to Support, Harm, Justice, Injustice, and Healing Sources: Adapted from Beyer et al.’s (2015, Fig.1) “Conceptual model relating individual, social and ecological factors to intimate partner violence” and influenced by Koss and Harvey’s (1991) ecological model of rape and Leonard’s (2015) discussion of structural and institutional systems in comparing street and elite crimes.

The third tier in the ecological model is community and neighborhood. Research documents the higher risks for both victimization and offending depending on one’s neighborhood, and this is the case for both youths and adults. Do parents make sufficient wages to be able to be home with their children when they are not in daycare or school or to hire an adequate youth care provider? Does a child live where it is safe to walk to and from school? Do young adults live where there is

y g extraordinary pressure to join a gang? Do police rarely come to the neighborhood or only come in manners that further alienate and criminalize the communities they are policing? Neighborhood does not affect CLS workers as much as it does potential victims and offenders, other than the significant point that we desperately need to increase the representation among police, jail/prison, and court workers to more adequately reflect the communities being served. And this needs to be done at the upper-level/leadership positions as well as the ground-level jobs. When guard, police, court, and lawyer positions are so skewed in representations that do not reflect the communities they serve, justice is less likely for victims and offenders. Moreover, outsiders, such as women, in these jobs experience far more hostility and discrimination, making it more difficult to conduct and stay in these jobs. For CLS workers, the research often reports on the necessity of coworkers’ support for both safety and networking, as well as general job satisfaction. Thus, “community” is not restricted to where one lives, but also where one finds support outside of family. The fourth tier in Figure 14.1, institutional, refers to the access to, quality of, and distribution of services in institutions such as schools, health care providers (e.g., hospitals, wellness clinics), housing authorities, and CLS institutions (i.e., police, courts, jails/prisons, halfway houses, etc.). The school-to-prison pipeline is the best example of schools as an institution feeding injustice, especially when the youths in this pipeline are predominantly poor, Black, and Brown. And when the CLS is disparate in decisions including stopping, charging, finding guilty, sentencing, paroling, and providing rehabilitation and reentry services, it contributes to injustice. And when the CLS workers are hostile to or discriminate against women and other “outsider” groups in hiring, promotion, and/or as coworkers, they are frequently not only contributing to injustice but also breaking laws (e.g., Title VII and sexual harassment.) The final tier in the ecological model, structural, refers to the degrees of sexism, racism, classism, homophobia/heterosexism, anti-immigrant, and their intersections. For example, starting at the first tier, being a girl, African American, Latinx, person with a mental illness, an immigrant (especially undocumented), or LGBTQI+ would not matter in environments free of sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination. Leonard (2015) not only provides startling comparisons between the perceptions of and CLS system responses to “street” and “elite” (e.g., state, corporate, and white-collar) crimes but also emphasizes how for street but not elite crimes, the individual is the focus for being at fault, and this is often fraught with condemning marginalized offenders as stupid, lazy, greedy, and irresponsible, typically enmeshed in sexist, racist, and classist code speak. Leonard underscores that “by treating criminals as subhumans, we avoid basic questions about the social circumstances that lead to crime and any social responsibility for these circumstances” (p. 32). The four interlocking goals for foundational change identified by Kijakazi, Brown, Charleston, and Runes (2019), “to overcome the damaging effects of structural racism and ensure a more equitable future,” are closing the wealth gap, eliminating inequities in public schools, closing employment and earnings gaps, and ending punitive policing (p. 7). Their focus is justifiably on the massive race discrepancies in these four areas, and applied more generally to the fourth tier, structural¸ of Figure 14.1. They provide an example of how structural changes impact institutions, neighborhoods/communities, families, and individuals. The following sections will address some advancement in feminist criminology theories and methods, and then address specific innovations and recommendations for changing the CLS for victims, offenders, and workers. The quote by Posadas (2017) at the beginning of this chapter is to recognize the profound effect misogyny has on women and girls, including, but not solely, their trajectories into incarceration. Similarly, Baumle (2018) refers to the “trauma-to-prison pipeline” that disproportionately impacts girls of Color due to their disproportionately growing numbers, “experiences of multiple and intersecting forms of trauma,” harsher punishments for their reactions to trauma, and the youth system’s lack of responding to their needs (p. 696). The overlapping forms of oppression, and how they intersect with systems, institutions, communities and neighborhoods, and impact individuals, structures, institutions, communities and neighborhoods, is at the root of understanding and solving the complicated dynamics of justice and injustice (see Figure 14.1).

IMPROVING THEORETICAL APPROACHES Feminist theorists do not necessarily discount the application of some of the more traditional theories to girls/women but are troubled by women/girls being left out of theoretical discussion (and policy applications), and/or when they are just assumed to have similar experiences as boys/men. Critical race feminist theory is useful for guiding research on gender and crime, particularly the intersections of gender and race and other critical variables. This section will introduce transformative critical feminist criminology and highlight how more recent research combining pro-feminist theories are improving feminist criminology scholarship. Finally, theory and methods typically overlap, so both theories and methods appear in this and the next section.

Transformative Critical Feminist Criminology Consistent with critical race feminist theory, Chesney-Lind and Morash (2013) advocate for a transformative critical feminist criminology (TCFC) to best address gender and crime. In addition to stressing intersectionality and masculinity, TCFC adherents advocate for feminist research that includes girls (not solely women), understand the positions of women working in the CLS in policing and prisons/jails, and address how the corporate media demonizes girls and women of Color. (They do not purport that every study does all of these things but that as a body of research, these issues must be addressed/included.) Figure 14.2 summarizes the components of TCFC.

Combining Feminist-Friendly Theories in the Same Study Pathways theory (PT) is one of the most significant contributions to the etiology of crime in the past few decades. PT has not “only” significantly contributed to understanding the role of trauma as a risk factor for offending for girls and women, but PT has also confirmed boys and young men’s victimizations as risk factors for offending (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Dembo et al., 1992; K. A. Dodge et al., 1990; Topitzes et al., 2011; Widom, 1989a, 1989b). Wattanaporn and Holtfreters (2014) review of PT states: “Methodologically, pathways scholars have looked at not only why females commit crime but have also taken into consideration the historical contexts of women’s lives that led them to crime in the first place” (p. 201).

Figure 14.2 ● Chesney-Lind and Morash’s (2013) Transformative Critical Feminist Criminology Source: Adapted from Chesney-Lind, M., & Morash, M. (2013). Transformative feminist criminology: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology, 21(3), 287–304.

Chapter 3 went into PT in depth, including how it is consistent with cycle of violence (CVT) and life course (LCT) theories, varying mostly in methods, as well as LCT frequently omitting victimization variables. CVT and LCT are preferable to PT in that they can identify resiliency or protective factors, given that the participants are not solely offenders. More and more commonly, researchers are testing some

combinations of PT, LCT, CVT, and/or general strain theory (GST), and to a lesser extent, social learning theory (SLT) and labeling theory (LT) in the same study (Brook et al., 2011; Carbone-Lopez & Miller, 2012; F. Estrada & Nilsson, 2012; GarciaHallett, 2019; Hammersley, 2011; M. C. Johnson & Menard, 2012; N. J. Jones et al., 2014; Kaufman, 2009; Larson & Sweeten, 2012; Mersky, Topitzes, & Reynolds, 2012; S. S. Simpson, Yahner, & Dugan, 2008; Topitzes et al., 2011, 2012; Xie, Drabick, & Chen, 2011). This makes sense as so many of the tenets are similar among these theories, and this is providing significant contributions to theorizing about gender and intersectionality in identifying risk factors for offending. A study combining GST and LCT found the impact of romantic relationship breakups on offending is gendered: For women, the breakups solely increase their overall alcohol use and their binge marijuana and alcohol use, whereas men’s breakups lead to higher levels of offending and more substance use, and men with multiple breakups commit even more crimes and are even more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol (Larson & Sweeten, 2012). Studies guided by LCT and PT include one by Garcia-Hallett (2019), who revealed important nuances and complexities regarding motherhood and how it is vital not to essentialize the maternal role across women offenders (just as it is important not to essential maternal roles among women not in prison). For some women, becoming a mother helped them desist; for others, it did not; and still others began offending after becoming mothers to provide for their children. Carbone-Lopez and Miller’s (2012) PT and LCT study identified the “precocious development” and role transitions to adult roles and responsibilities among women methamphetamine users. Their traumatic childhood experiences and parents’ drug involvement steered them into “precocious development,” whereby they were responsible for sibling care, parenthood, independent living, and involvement with older peers and romantic partners at precocious (earlier than normal) ages. These characteristics were subsequently linked to their drug use. Thus, factors such as child sexual abuse pushed the then girls into adult roles and responsibilities (e.g., a girl who was living on her own by the time she was 13 to get away from a sexually abusive stepfather), which gave them access to older and delinquent peers and lovers, and meth became a way to cope with this new life. This is consistent with Lopez’s (2017) finding on adjudicated girls’ adultification, reported in Chapter 5. Topitzes, Mersky, and Reynolds (Mersky et al., 2012; Topitzes et al., 2011, 2012) used LCT, CVT, and PT to frame their excellent longitudinal and large studies of class-disadvantaged Chicago youths of Color (93% African American, 7% Latinx). Their research separately addressed childhood (under age 12) and adolescent (aged 12–17) abuse victimization and adolescent and adult property, violent, and drug offending. They found, as predicted by the theories, that child abuse was related to both girls’ and boys’ subsequent adult offending; however, it only affected boys’ youthful (delinquency) offending (Topitzes et al., 2011). However, in other analyses of these data the authors found that although the males committed more violent offenses than females, early childhood victimization equally impacted both genders’ later violent offending (Topitzes et al., 2012). Notably, unlike the boys, the girls’ early abuse was not linked with subsequent poor peer social skills, and their internalization of behaviors appeared to protect them from subsequent violent behavior while externalizing their behaviors propelled them more toward future violent acts (Topitzes et al., 2012). S. S. Simpson and colleagues’ (2008) PT and LCT study of women in jail found over half (54%) were adult (18 years and older) onset offenders (for the remainder, 46%, their onset was as youth). Women whose offending onset was as youths were more likely to be sexually abused in childhood and more involved in drug-dealing, property crimes, and violent offenses as adults. The adult onset women were most likely to be violently victimized by rape, assaults, and robberies by partners and nonpartners, and less likely to use violence offensively. S. S. Simpson and colleagues found the biggest risk for adult onset of offending by women was being married to a “bad man,” while the life course scholars have identified being married to a “good woman” as a significant factor in male offenders’ desistance of offending (p. 103). Brennan and colleagues’ (2012) combined PT and LCT study of incarcerated women identified four pathway categories: “normal functioning” drug/property, battered women/victimization, poor in antisocial subcultures, and antisocial aggressive.

IMPROVING RESEARCH METHODS It is useful to remember that no study is perfect, even when incredibly well-funded and carefully designed. For example, we cannot know that people interviewed about whether they have been sexually abused will feel safe enough to disclose this, or if they even remember it. Additionally, when we study abuse survivor rates, the most atrisk of these are often the most difficult to access for participation, such as those who are homeless or in prisons, jails, and mental institutions. Also, perusing Figure 14.1, it is close to impossible to study all the tiers in the ecological model in one study, and even in one tier, all of the components. It is useful to understand the limitations but strive for the best feasible study, and one that accounts for the study participants’ well-being. Courses and publications on feminist research methods always emphasize ethical methods; indeed, it is an element of Chesney-Lind and Morash’s (2013) TCFC (see Figure 14.2). This includes working to ensure that researchers are respectful to, protect the privacy and anonymity of, and do not coerce participation or exploit study participants. It also includes researchers being reflexive of their positionality vis-à-vis the participants/area of study. Very exploratory research on barely researched or unresearched topics typically requires ethnographies and far more qualitative approaches as a sole method. Therefore, many “first” feminist studies have been ethnographies, such as E. M. Miller’s (1986) research on “street” women working as prostitutes and hustlers, Sanday’s (1990) research on fraternity rapes, J. W. Moore’s (1991) and A. Campbell’s (1984) research on women/girl gangs, Arnold’s (1990) and Richie’s (1996) research on African American women’s incarceration, Maher’s (2000) research on women on crack, Villalón’s (2010) research on a nonprofit for Latina IPA survivors, and Panfil’s (2017) excellent study on queer men in gangs. This is not to deny the value of quantitative research carefully designed, collected, analyzed, and interpreted, particularly over time, which allows examining potential trends. Two studies using quantitative data provide powerful findings discovered by careful methods, specifically nuanced analyses, coincidentally, both testing power-control theory (PCT). First, Eitle and his colleagues’ (2014) study, using Waves I and II of the national Add Health data to access both protective (resiliency) and risk factors for delinquency, found the main protective factor for violent behavior, having a grandparent in the home, was solely protective for Native American girls. This analysis is not only remarkable in that protective factors were included but also that Add Health allows a big enough sample of Native American youths to allow for significant findings and this important nuance of race and gender. Similarly, Schulze and Bryan’s (2017) PCT study using adjudicated youth court files exemplifies the careful interpretations needed in data analyses. More specifically, they interpret the finding that the only mother-headed household that “produced” more delinquency was African American mother–headed as more about racism in CLS processing than poorer parenting by single-parent African American mothers. Schulze and Bryan state that this was likely due to the system’s racist bias rather than the youths’ mothering. The authors conclude, “A PCT lens can assist in highlighting these processes, but researchers should be cognizant of the fact that the modern family structure is dynamic, which lessens its predictive value to delinquency, especially if examined in isolation from other, known correlates that also operate as patriarchal controls” (p. 91). The section on theories emphasized the importance of merging some of the most promising theories. Similarly, much of the excellent research cited in this book used multiple methods (also called multimethods). Multimethods are often ideal for gathering data from various sources for the same study (i.e., interviewing youths about their school-to-prison pipeline experiences and gaining access to look at the same youths’ school records). For example, a study of IPA survivors’ levels and types of social support also examined the neighborhoods in which they lived and found that not only did Latinx women report more social support than Black or white women, but regardless of survivors’ race/ethnicity, they tended to report more social support the greater the percentage of Latinx in their neighborhoods (DePrince, Buckingham, & Belknap, 2014). This is an example of using individual and aggregate level data in the same study.

One of the best ways to collect data retrospectively, which is how PT data are typically collected, but in a manner that more accurately captures the sequencing of events (e.g., traumas, offending, addiction problems) is by using life history calendars (also known as life event calendars or life event histories). These face-to-face interviews capture life transitions and trajectories through hierarchical, thematic, and temporal structures (Sutton, 2010). One of the first studies to do so was Sommers and Baskin’s (1994) “life event histories” of 84 women arrested or incarcerated for violent crimes in New York City. The women who had “early onset” of violent offending were more likely than the normal- and late-onset women to report sexual abuse by a stranger, dropping out of school, initial alcohol and marijuana use at younger ages (typically before they turned 9 years old), and younger when they became addicted to more powerful drugs (Sommers & Baskin, 1994, p. 478). Similarly, N. T. Carr and Hanks’s (2012) study using life histories of incarcerated women found that g women with older onset (after the age of 20) of offending were more likely to have experienced significant loss, increased caretaking responsibilities (e.g., a male partner who leaves her and her children without money or social support), and alcohol/drug addiction, which was often a turning point leading to their onset of offending. Finally, life history calendars are a more participant–researcher collaboration in data collection, when the participants take part in mapping their lives with the researcher on “their” calendar. Also related to methods is the paucity of meaningful data on incarcerated women’s pregnancies, births, and care for babies born to incarcerated mothers. Goshin and Colbert (2019) justifiably call for required reporting by federal prison systems, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on incarceration pregnancies and outcomes: Data collection must include the following: pregnancy prevalence; pregnancy and birth outcomes; pre- and perinatal health care and services provided, including availability of and census in residential nurseries; and the use of shackles and isolated confinement. Data should be reported at the state level to account for high variability and include demographics to allow assessment of disproportionate racial impact. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should also be mandated to publicly release nonidentified data obtained under their pregnancy monitoring directive. (p. 657) In terms of data analysis, in the chapters on offending it was noted that a far better statistical technique to examine gender differences in variables related to offending and offending sanctions is to run separate models for girls/women and boys/men rather than simply entering “gender” (or sex) as a variable in a model. Similarly, as noted throughout Chapter 6, it is vital to conduct statistical analyses on CLS decisionmaking to examine the gender–race intersections. When statistical analyses fail to examine gender–race intersections, they may report no direct race and/or no direct gender effect, because it gets washed out. Analyses controlling for these intersections almost routinely find African American boys/men, and to a lesser extent, Latinx boys/men, receiving the harshest CLS responses. And when controlling for gender–race intersections, there is also sometimes evidence of harsher CLS responses to African American and Latinx than white girls/women. Also related to statistical analyses, researchers should question whether program evaluations should require such high levels of significance for outcome variables when determining their success and continuance. For example, if women in a safehouse program were more likely to find child care and housing than those not in the program, but it was “only” significant at the p ≤ .07 level (meaning we are 93% sure this relationship was not due to chance) instead of the “required” p ≤ .07 level (we are 95% it is not due to chance), should we defund the program? Moreover, statistical significance is harder to achieve with smaller samples, and many programs are quite small when they start, so by definition they are unlikely to reach statistical significance in outcome variables. Finally, given the growing feminist advocacy for more comprehensive and alternative responses to crimes, more research needs to be conducted on communitycoordinated responses and restorative justice models. McCauley, Campbell,

Buchanan, and Moylan (2019) recommend “community-engaged research” on sexual assault responses; this favors research designs that are collaborative rather than isolating among agencies and thus less likely to have troubling power dynamics. They also advocate for an “intersectional, community-engaged framework to promote justice, healing, and prevention” (p. 1916).

TWO STRATEGIES CUTTING ACROSS OFFENDING, VICTIMIZATION, AND CLS WORKERS Two relatively recent strategies are significant innovations for offending, victimization, and CLS workers. Restorative justice (RJ) and trauma-informed care (TIC) have proven to be helpful for empowering victims/survivors, assisting offenders, and providing a unique way for CLS workers to respond to offenders and victims.

Community-Coordinated Responses (CCRs) and Restorative Justice (RJ) Models Given the growing recognition of and frustration with the limited effectiveness of the traditional police, court, and jail/prison practices in assisting with recovery, rehabilitation, and feelings of justice among victims, offenders, and their loved ones, alternative intervention approaches have grown (M. E. Kim, 2020). The aim is “to build organizational and regional capacity to implement community-based or social network interventions within provider organizations” (M. E. Kim, 2020, n.p.). Such approaches argue for more justice, transparency, community involvement and accountability, and victim, offender, and community healing and recovery. Key to CCRs and to many RJ models are victim advocates, “whose role is typically to support victims by protecting their right to control the process and prioritizing their needs over those of others participating in the response to an assault” (Brubaker, 2019, p. 308).

Community-Coordinated Responses A timeless contribution to understanding the “best responses” to IPA survivors is Davies and her colleagues’ book Safety Planning With Battered Women (1998). First, IPA survivors need programs that are both comprehensive and individualized. Furthermore, Davies et al. (1998) stress that the response be a survivor-defined advocacy, defined as an “approach to advocacy that builds a partnership between advocates and battered women, and ultimately has each battered woman defining the advocacy and help she needs” (p. 3). Too often, according to Davies and colleagues, abused women are not consulted about their needs and a servicedefined program is used, where women are simply expected to find and use available programming, regardless of whether it fits their needs. Such practices often alienate abused women from the CLS, making them less likely to recontact shelters or the police or to seek assistance in the future. A recent study of legal advocates for acquiring IPA protection orders emphasized the necessity of survivor-defined advocacy “including court accompaniment, safety planning, meeting petitioners’ extralegal needs, and centering the survivor as the decision-maker” (Costello & Durfee, 2019, p. 299). In addition to survivor-defined advocacy, in Safety Planning With Battered Women, Davies and colleagues (1998) distinguish between IPA survivors’ life-generated and batterer-generated risks. Life-generated risks are the environmental and social risks a woman must consider in her decisions to leave or report her abusive partner, including financial limitations, racism, a woman’s disability status, and sexual orientation (in same-sex battering cases). The batterer-generated risks are the risks related to a batterer’s control of the victim, such as physical and psychological harm and threats to the victim, the victim’s children, and the victim’s friends and family. IPA survivors’ lives are often complex, varying on a wide variety of risk and life conditions

(e.g., income, education, race/ethnicity, sexuality, motherhood status, levels of abuse experienced, access to agencies and aid); thus, it is necessary that responses to them be individualized to meet each woman’s particular and varied needs. Davies et al. (1998) and others, such as Kanuha (1996), highlight the racism that abused women of Color encounter not only in the police and courts but sometimes within victim advocacy agencies, such as shelters. Finally, Davies and colleagues (1998) effectively show how many of the risks women face if they stay in abusive relationships are identical to those they face if they leave these relationships (e.g., increased abuse, loss of child custody, etc.), pointing out the problem with blaming women for staying. The guidance provided in Safety Planning With Battered Women is useful for organizing a CCR, but it also helpful for IPA survivors and individuals who are trying to help a loved one in an abusive partner relationship (e.g., a sibling, parent, friend). Recent studies criticized the “one-size-fits-all” responses to IPA victims (Messing, Ward-Lasher, Thaller, & Bagwell-Gray, 2015) and offenders (Murphy-Geiss, Roberts, & Miles, 2015), advocating for more CCRs to both victims and offenders. Messing and colleagues (2015) describe how IPA victim CLS services solely use state authority “to enhance women’s power relative to that of abusive men,” without serving “the needs of women who, for cultural or personal reasons, want to remain in their relationship, or marginalized women who fear the power of the state due to institutionalized violence, heterosexism, and racism” (p. 305). Murphy-Geiss and her colleagues (2015) compared a pilot program that individualized IPA perpetrator responses to the “one-size-fits-all” approach and found the former significantly decreased recidivism. Holliday and her colleagues’ (2019) Baltimore communitybased response to IPA study drew on mostly young African American men who had abused their intimate partners, to conduct participant-driven design of an abuse intervention program. Consistent with the following section, the men chose a traumainformed violence prevention approach to address “the comprehensive dynamics of an impoverished, urban environment” and “provide direction for community-based intervention and prevention programming” for IPA perpetrators. “No hope for the future” was the most impactful clustered construct on IPA perpetration, and “major stress” and “seeing domestic violence during childhood … were the highest ranked individual risk factors for” IPA perpetration (Holliday et al., 2019, p. 107). Clearly, this comprehensive and individualized response requires community coordination of various community and systemic organizations, while it is individualized to specific survivors. And clearly, much of this can be for other types of survivors including non-IPA sexual abuse survivors, who should be able to advocate for themselves. CCRs ideally include such informal community members as parents, neighbors, teachers, and friends; members of official agencies, including the CLS (e.g., police, prosecutors, and judges); health providers (e.g., emergency room personnel and social workers) and staff in rape crisis centers, safehouses, and homeless shelters; and survivors and former perpetrators (Belknap & McCall, 1994; Blackburn, Taylor, & Davis, 2010; Cahn, 1992; DePrince, Belknap, Labus, Buckingham, & Gover, 2012; Gamache, Edleson, & Schock, 1988; Shepard & Pence, 1999). On a more encouraging note, a longitudinal Denver, Colorado, study of women abused by intimate partners whose cases reached the police compared women with the traditional response of a single victim advocate to women with a victim-focused, innovative CCR. As expected, the survivors in the CCR condition were significantly more engaged with prosecution tasks and the prosecution of their abusers (DePrince et al., 2012). Moreover, the impact of the CCR was particularly strong among women marginalized by race/ethnicity and class, as well as those still living with their abusers (DePrince et al., 2012). One of the few CCR studies focusing on sexual abuse, a study of sexual assault kits (SAKs), documented the necessary coordination that was largely lacking between the health care providers collecting the SAK evidence, the laboratories analyzing it, the police using it to arrest, and the prosecutors’ decisions (Cross et al., 2017). Another of the handful of CCR studies on sexual abuse compared sexual assault survivors’ evaluations of reactions by CLS personnel, community-based providers, and informal supports (DePrince, Dmitrieva, Gagnon, & Srinivas, 2017). They found more variability within than across participants, indicating that survivors can have a range of experiences among the potential responders

(CLS, community advocates, and informal). Interestingly, regarding negative reactions, sexual abuse survivors rated informal supporters significantly worse than community-based and CLS providers, seemingly in part at least, because the informal supporters were less able to provide information or “tangible aid” (DePrince et al., 2017).

Restorative Justice (RJ) Restorative justice (RJ) is a CLS response “where there is victim input, victims and offenders meet face-to-face in a community instead of a conventional court setting, and some form of restitution and reconciliation (ideally) occurs between the victim and offender” (Belknap & McDonald, 2010, p. 370). RJ programs, originally used most commonly with youthful offenders and for minor property offenses (Cheon & Regehr, 2006), have increasingly expanded across offender age and offense types. RJ advocates support this procedure over the typical court process where victims and offenders rarely directly communicate, and the community has extraordinarily little if any involvement. More specifically, RJ advocates claim RJ increases the likelihood (over traditional court procedures) for offenders to recognize and help restore victims’/survivors’ losses, through the opportunity of offenders and survivors to dialogue and communicate more directly and in a context of community support (Umbreit, 1996). Two conditions typically required prior to using RJ models are (1) the survivor must agree to RJ, and (2) the offender needs to acknowledge guilt. “RJ uses a variety of methods, including sharing circles, community reparation boards, and conferences, to promote acceptance of responsibility by offenders and repair harm” (McCauley et al., 2019, p. 1917). Few sexual abuse studies address survivors’ encounters with their abusers after the abuse. Given that most sexual abuse victims and offenders know each other and are often in shared spaces (e.g., neighborhoods, communities, work, schools), such encounters are not uncommon. When survivors confront their abusers, a pervasive response by GBA abusers is termed DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender). A college study found that, as the abusers likely intended, DARVO was effective in confusing and silencing the survivors (Harsey, Zurbriggen, & Freyd, 2017). Shepp, O’Callaghan, and Ullman’s (2019) qualitative study of sexual assault survivors’ perspectives of their post-assault encounters with their abusers addressed DARVO and advocated for RJ in sexual abuse cases. Although DARVO responses were as expected, very upsetting, the post-assault encounters were often motivators for disclosure of the assault to others, seeking help, and recovery, and DARVO would be less possible within an appropriately run RJ setting. Most of the feminist support for RJ approaches to GBA has appeared in the past decade (Belknap & McDonald, 2010; Brubaker, 2019; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020; Koss, 2014; Koss et al., 2014; McCauley et al., 2019; McGlynn et al., 2012; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019; S. L. Miller & Iovanni, 2013; Presser & Gaarder, 2000), coinciding with the growth of abolitionist/anti-carceral feminists. That is, a growing number of feminist scholars and/or activists advocate for RJ given the many problems with the CLS (i.e., sexism, racism, classism, injustice) and that RJ allows a meeting with an offender that should safeguard against the DARVO abusers’ victimblaming and manipulative responses. Certainly, RJ allows GBA survivors to have their voices heard far more than the traditional court system (Belknap & McDonald, 2010; McGlynn et al., 2012), but it also allows a platform for gender-based abusers to take accountability and in front of their victims and with witnesses in a manner that is more healing than shaming (S. L. Miller & Iovanni, 2013). Recall Holliday and her colleagues’ (2019) study of intimate partner abusers’ participation in designing an intervention program for intimate partner abusers, who were primarily young, poor, African American men with significant trauma histories. Consistent with this, Camp (2018) cautions about any IPA intervention models that use shame as a punishing act, given that some intimate partner perpetrators with profound social and economic marginalization have “cumulative shaming experiences in their pasts” (p. 1677). Moreover, Camp questions the logic of shaming perpetrators to show them that shaming is wrong and is concerned that this could undermine survivors’ safety and violence reduction. Mills, Grauwiler, and Pezold’s (2019) evaluation of a “hybrid” of

the batterer intervention programs (BIPs) with an RJ component (called circles of peace, which did not appear to include shaming) compared to the solely BIP approach, found in a 2-year follow-up the hybrid BIP-RJ significantly reduced new arrests by 53% and crime severity by 52% for all arrests, including domestic violence. In their recent extensive review of studies of RJ in GBA cases, McGlynn and Westmarland (2019) concluded that, collectively, these studies are consistent with the varied survivor experiences and emotions regarding GBA. The “victim-survivors’ understandings of justice were neither driven by, nor reflective of, conventional criminal justice. What stands out is the emphasis on complexity and nuance; on the variability of the justice interests; and on the challenge to commonly held assumptions that victim-survivors seek personal justice and punitive outcomes” (McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019, p. 182).

Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) Trauma-informed care (TIC) has been identified as an excellent therapeutic response by health professionals (Azzopardi & Smith, 2019) and youth educators (J. D. Bartlett & Smith, 2019) to trauma survivors, including children who have witnessed IPA (J. D. Bartlett & Smith, 2019; A. Y. Wang & Pannell, 2019). TIC is consistent with the CCR approach. For example, two recent studies advocated for TIC among IPA survivors. One study found mental health was the IPA survivors’ most common unmet need, while their children’s main unmet need was preventive health care and immunizations (Wadsworth et al., 2018). The other study found that “safe affordable housing” was related to the IPA survivors’ ability to recover from IPA trauma (Hetling, Dunford, Lin, & Michaelis, 2018). In addition to the success of a TIC response to survivors, particularly GBA survivors, in the community (people not incarcerated), TIC responses have also been found to assist in incarcerated women’s/girls’ trauma recovery (Covington, 2008, 2013; Harner & Burgess, 2011; Hoskins & Morash, 2020; S. C. Kennedy et al., 2018; Levenson & Willis, 2019; McKenna et al., 2019; Mollard & Hudson, 2016). Incarcerated “women who participate in these [TIC] programs typically report significant decreases in mental health symptoms (e.g., depression and posttraumatic stress), anger and in-prison behavioral infractions, and recidivism after release,” but too often they are only offered to traumatized women with substance addictions (S. C. Kennedy et al., 2018, p. 227). A recent study of incarcerated women with disabilities advocated highly for TIC given these women’s exceptionally elevated trauma victimizations (even among incarcerated women) (S. A. Smith, Mays, Collins, & Ramaswamy, 2019). Finally, TIC research has advocated for the importance of GBA awareness among police, particularly to understand the dynamics of GBA and how sexual abuse or IPA survivors’ reactions may not make sense (Lathan, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Duncan, & Stefurak, 2019; Rich, 2019). Rich (2019) reviews the potential contributions when police are trained in TIC, primarily for rape survivors, including less revictimization while conducting the interview and gathering evidence, less triggering, more empowerment, and demystifying the CLS process. Notably, she also identifies how police TIC training should assist the police agency, in terms of increasing accountability to victims and community collaboration (by working with victim advocates), and increase gender balance in police departments by combatting worker-on-worker sexual harassment and thus improving women police officers’ experiences, promotions, and retention. Lathan and colleagues’(2019) study of police and TIC in a mid-sized southern U.S. community found, as hoped, that police officers with TIC training were more knowledgeable about trauma and SAKs and more invested in learning about sexual abuse. They advocated for adding TIC training to the police academy.

CHANGING THE RISKS FOR AND RESPONSES TO GIRLS AND WOMEN’S OFFENDING Before addressing some of the overreaching guidelines endorsed by feminist criminologists and advocates for girls and women caught up in the CLS, it is useful to

recognize what could help keep girls and women from being criminalized and ending up in the CLS. For example, rather than “only” having programs on sexual abuse and other childhood traumas, IPA, and other adolescent and adulthood traumas for girls and women already in the system, it would be preferable to have a society and network of agencies that educated about these GBAs and other traumas to deter their occurrence and encourage earlier reporting by victims. Moreover, earlier reporting is almost unworkable unless the individuals working in agencies, ranging from infant daycare to graduate schools, police departments, victim advocates, courts, and others, take these GBAs and other traumas seriously and respond appropriately. This brings us back to the necessity of looking at this through an ecological, systemic, and structural lens (see Figure 14.1). Two key background points, backed by research, should be central in deterring and responding to girls and women’s potential, actual, and labeled offending. First is recognizing the intersection of gender with other characteristics such as racism, classism, sexuality, immigrant status, and mental illness as potential risks for being labeled a delinquent or adult offender and/or being placed in a situation of being coerced or forced into violence (often self-defense) or criminal activities (Belknap, Holsinger, & Little, 2012; Chauhan, Burnette, et al., 2010; Chauhan et al., 2009; Chauhan, Reppucci, et al., 2010; DeHart, 2008; N. Jones, 2010; J. Miller, 2008; Ocen, 2012; Richie, 1996, 2012; Salcido & Menjívar, 2012; E. C. Wells, 2012). Second is the acknowledgment of structural factors, including how agencies do and do not work together in ways that can further exacerbate already marginalized women and girls (and often, men and boys). For example, we know that incarcerating parents, especially mothers, places their children at an increased risk of offending/criminalization (Hagan & Foster, 2012a). Crenshaw (2012) documents how race, gender, and class oppression link the “structural and political dimensions of gender violence and mass incarceration” (p. 1418). Similarly, D. E. Roberts (2012) identifies “how the U.S. prison and foster care systems work together to punish black mothers in the service of preserving race, gender, and class inequality” (p. 1474). Finally, having a parent in prison, particularly an incarcerated mother, and attending a school where many students have one or both parents incarcerated are risks for youths’ offending (Hagan & Foster, 2012a, 2012b). Thus far, I have reviewed more structural and systemic actions needed to keep girls and women out of the CLS. Obviously, that is the primary goal. Not only is successful reentry increasingly difficult for people who have been incarcerated (Middlemass, 2017), but most carceral institutions offer very little in rehabilitation and are more likely to produce more hardened criminals (Contreras, 2013). A policy outcome of PT research was implementing gender-responsive programming for women and girl offenders (Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). More specifically, given the gender differences in pre-incarceration experiences and that women’s offenses are far less likely to be for violent offenses and are typically, lower-level, property, drug, and public order offenses, responses to prisoners must address gender, be genderresponsive (Covington & Bloom, 2006; Hubbard & Matthews, 2008; M. V. Olson & Amendola, 2019; Ravoira, Graziano, & Patino-Lydia, 2012; Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). Almost everything recommended in this section, however, is also recommended for incarcerated men/boys. Although women/girls’ carceral institutions are typically far worse than men/boys’ institutions, the men/boys’ facilities should not be the standard. On the other hand, gender equality is a constitutional right, including for the incarcerated. Turning to improvements necessary for responding to incarcerated girls and women, Figure 14.3 summarizes research-based recommendations, and because Chapter 7 already documented the need for them, it should be evident why they are recommended. In some cases, however, I will provide some additional content. For simplicity, I use the term prisoner regardless of whether the individual is incarcerated in a jail, prison, halfway house, or juvenile detention facility. Recall that some incarcerated women, particularly with very abusive intimate partners, have found prisons a relatively safe place. It can also be a place that, if the appropriate investments are made in health care (including dental care), educational programs, and vocational training, incarcerated women/girls can address and be in recovery from trauma and addictions, as well as acquire educational and vocational skills to assist them in more successful reentry. Carceral institutions for women and girls are

more likely than those for men and boys to lump the minimum-, medium- and maximum-security prisoners together and to be farther from the prisoners’ homes/communities. Thus, halting the building of, or even closing prisons, and providing alternatives to prison, the first recommendation area in Figure 14.3, especially for nonviolent, nonserious women with dependent children, would be far less costly, help offenders and their children, and likely deter the revolving door into and out of prisons. One recent midwestern study found girls who received group home placement with gender-responsive treatment versus standard probation were less likely to recidivate (28% vs. 42%, respectively) 2 years later (V. R. Anderson et al., 2019). Significantly, prisoner safety, the second item in Figure 14.3, involves safety from staff and other prisoners and requires clear, safe, and responsive reporting for victims and witnesses, with necessary sanctions against violators. Chapter 7 documented the horrific cases and still too common cases of prison rape (including sexual coercion), particularly by staff. Staff who seriously violate prisoners should not only be fired but be charged with and processed for the crimes they commit against the prisoners in the CLS. Third, health care is even worse in most women’s than men’s carceral facilities. Not only is basic patient health for colds and broken bones not always available and not always free, it is often of exceptionally inadequate quality. Most incarcerated women/girls grapple with drug/alcohol addiction, and incarceration can be a time for them to acquire the ability to become and stay sober, and some drug treatment programs have been very effective (H. V. Miller, Miller, & Barnes, 2016). Gender-responsive health care for incarcerated girls/women must cover five domains of reproductive health care: “routine screening, menstruation-related concerns, prenatal and postpartum care, contraception and abortion, and sexually transmitted infections” (Knittel, Ti, Schear, & Comfort, 2017, p. 200). The health care available to most incarcerated pregnant women/girls and the fetuses they carry is sorely lacking, as is their own and their babies’ health care during and after delivery (D. S. Morse et al., 2019). Mental health of incarcerated women is often tied to addiction (S. M. Lynch et al., 2017). Earlier in this chapter, the contributions of TIC for women/girl offenders as very effective was noted. Individualizing women and girls’ treatment plans is vital (M. V. Olson & Amendola, 2019), and individual counseling, while more expensive, is necessary for many of these women and girls (Cauffman, 2008; Chesney-Lind et al., 2008; Covington & Bloom, 2006; Hubbard & Matthews, 2008; K. R. Moloney & Moller, 2009; Robarge, 2006; E. M. Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2012). Finally, research has also shown that programming on empowerment and structural marginalization due to sexism, racism, poverty, and other oppressions, is helpful for incarcerated women and girls (Alleyne, 2006; Chesney-Lind et al., 2008; Covington & Bloom, 2006; Ravoira et al., 2012; Robarge, 2006; Salina et al., 2011; Walls, Hartshorn, & Whitbeck, 2013).

Figure 14.3 ● Improvement, Innovation, and Expansion Areas Recommended for Incarcerated Women and Girls The number of children with one or both parents incarcerated has vastly increased over the past three decades (B. L. Aiello & McCorkel, 2018; M. V. Olson & Amendola, 2019) and children’s ability to visit incarcerated parents is disproportionately suffered by poor children (Rubenstein, Toman, & Cochran, 2019), which constitute most of those incarcerated. For the sake of the children of incarcerated women, it is vital to do more to keep mothers of dependent children out of jail/prison, and when that is not done, expand and facilitate prison visits, phone calls, and other communications (e.g., mail, email, and Zoom) with both the incarcerated women’s children and their children’s care providers (e.g., fathers, grandparents, foster care, etc.). Not only do visits to and communications with incarcerated mothers (and fathers) need to be significantly expanded, but work needs to be done to make the visits better for these children. “Although the children of prisoners are not under legal sanction, they are nonetheless indirectly subject to the coercive apparatus of the state by virtue of their parent’s status and they are directly subject to this apparatus during their visits to correctional facilities” (B. L. Aiello & McCorkel, 2018, p. 352). Aiello and McCorkel

(2018) refer to this as “secondary prisonization,” defined as “the process through which the prison interpolates the routines, relationships, emotions, appearance, and worldview of family members and friends,” people who are legally innocent but are punished by the “carceral norms and structure” (p. 352). Goshin and colleagues (2017) recommend a presentencing reform to include a family impact statement, that would also benefit “caregiving fathers,” as well as children. Owen and colleagues (2017) documented the importance of programming in women’s prisons, and research on education has found it to be a resiliency factor (Amin, Flores, Flores-Lagunes, & Parisian, 2016; Middlemass, 2017; Pompoco, Wooldredge, Lugo, Sullivan, & Latessa, 2017; Rosário et al., 2016). Yet GEDs (high school diploma equivalents) have become increasingly more expensive and difficult to obtain while incarcerated. Expanding employment (including vocational) and educational skills is vital to help with reentry and to have more satisfied prisoners. Incarcerated women, particularly in jails, receive far less programming than men (Collica-Cox & Furst, 2019). Over the years, some of the innovated programs in women’s jails/prisons include Girl Scouts in a women’s prison (for daughters of the women) (Block & Potthast, 1998) and an animal-assisted therapy program called “Parenting, Prison, and Pups” with mothers in jail and their children (Collica-Cox & Furst, 2019). M. V. Olson and Amendola’s (2019) recent evaluation of gender-responsive programming in the Los Angeles County women’s jail recommends the “triaging process to identify appropriate programming in a timely manner, and the gender responsive advocate, a position dedicated to the pregnant” women (n.p.). They emphasize that the best programs “safeguarded the role of mothers” and minimized “the time between intake and programming. The main challenge to continuity, sustainability, and scalability was often technological” (n.p.). The technological infrastructure was outdated and did not allow for centralized electronic data, making it difficult to track the individual treatment plans, changes in them, and treatment outcomes. Rehabilitation is clearly related to reentry success. For example, a mixedmethod reentry opioid and opiate program for women offenders significantly reduced their recidivism (H. V. Miller et al., 2016). López-Garza (2016) documents the exciting development of formerly incarcerated women’s mobilizing to change incarceration practices “on behalf of the civil and human rights for all formerly incarcerated people”; becoming “their own advocates for change in policies and societal attitudes towards those with criminal records” (p. 69). In sum, there need to be a wide variety of programs available to incarcerated women and girls, and they need to be individualized. Programs that are found to work need to be expanded to represent a better standard of care for all incarcerated people. This is a winning solution not just for the individuals incarcerated but also for their families, communities, and everyone who prefers having functioning people, especially children, out of prisons and jails. Better programming results in less recidivism and more successful reentry.

CHANGING RESPONSES TO GENDER-BASED ABUSE (GBA) Chapters 8, 9, and 10 presented research on GBA. This section highlights recommendations and advances in responses to GBA, although many were covered in the sections on the community-coordinated responses, restorative justice, and trauma-informed care. As mentioned at the chapter outset, decreasing GBAs includes more effective responses to GBA survivors and offenders and significant changes in society and the CLS (see Figure 14.1). CLS and other community agencies need to collaborate and be flexible, easily accessible, and able to address the unique (individual), varied, and sometimes changing needs (e.g., cyberstalking and revenge porn as relatively new abuses) of GBA survivors. The individualized responses must attempt to account for gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexuality, citizenship status, nationality, mental and physical (dis)ability, and so on (Bui, 2004; Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013; Dasgupta, 2004; Davies et al., 1998; Durfee & Goodmark, 2019; Goodman & Epstein, 2005; Goodmark, 2018; Mills et al., 2006).

Figure 14.4 summarizes the overall recommendations for improvement, innovation, and expansion. Figure 14.1 and the beginning of the chapter stress the need for an ecological model when responding to crime in general, including GBA. The first part of Figure 14.4 advocates for more awareness and education about GBAs, which includes the dynamics, tactics, and understanding of rape myths and stereotypes about GBA abusers and survivors. This is important not just for professionals responding to these offenses but for everyone, as social support can be so vital to recovery and GBA is so widespread.

Responding to Sexual Abuse McGlynn and Westmarland (2019) identified a “fluidity of justice” in sexual assault survivors’ “ever-evolving, nuanced, and lived-experience” in responding to their victimizations, that included themes of justice as consequences, recognition, dignity, voice, prevention, and connectedness (p. 179). This is useful in many frameworks, including that survivors may not stay with the same feelings of justice and other ideals, over time. They refer to this as “the sexual violence ‘justice gap’” (p. 179). GBA survivors have similar nuanced emotions that can vary over time (Davies et al., 1998; Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; K. Fischer & Rose, 1995; Potter, 2008). One of the most powerful programs assisting sexual abuse survivors medically, psychologically, and legally is the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program in which “specially trained nurses, rather than doctors, provide 24-hr care to sexual assault victims in either hospital or nonhospital clinic settings” (R. Campbell et al., 2011, p. 379). SANE nurses typically work with local rape crisis centers and the CLS, and they are trained to respond specifically to support and comfort rape survivors, as well as to provide prophylactic antibiotics for the possibility of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and emergency contraception, and collect forensic evidence for the police and prosecutors. “If a case is prosecuted, the SANE may provide expert witness testimony in the trial to explain the medical forensic findings to the judge or jury” (R. Campbell et al., 2011, p. 379). One assessment of a SANE program in a large midwestern community found it was successful both in impacting positive legal changes and successful prosecution of rape victims’ cases (R. Campbell et al., 2011). Importantly, SANE evidence collection need not be restricted to victims. A study analyzing data of adult sexual assault cases in three midwestern law enforcement agencies found that SANE medical/forensic evidence collection from both sexual assault victims and suspects independently increased the likelihood that the police would collect additional evidence to support the cases, which in turn, increased the likelihood of case referral for prosecution (R. Campbell et al., 2012). Thus, the researchers concluded that SANE “programs can be a vital resource to victims and the legal community” (R. Campbell, Bybee, et al., 2012, p. 169). A statewide study of 71 Texan prosecutors found that they “expressed great confidence in the abilities, commitment, and overall contribution of SANEs at each phase of the process, including trial” (McLaren, Henson, & Stone, 2009, p. 137). Specifically, the prosecutors endorsed the SANEs’ assistance to the victim, evidence collection, and case legal processing, including their accessibility and responsiveness to prosecutorial requests for conferences in preparation for trial testimony (pp. 147– 149).

Figure 14.4 ● Improvement, Innovation, and Expansion Areas Recommended to Address Gender-Based Abuse (GBA) As previously reported in this book, American Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) women are more at risk of sexual abuse than any other racial/ethnic group in the United States (Bachman et al., 2010; Deer, 2015; Lucchesi, 2019; Russell, 1984; Weldon, 2018). Gebhardt and Woody (2012) identify the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) as a policy reform to improve the responses to AI/AN sexual assault survivors “in relation to social work and public health principles … and offers guidance for professional participation that emphasizes tribal sovereignty, indigenous capacity, and cultural competence” (p. 237). The authors document the complexity of mental health assessments for AI/AN sexual abuse survivors given the mental health effects of rape for AI/AN women related to historical trauma—the ongoing intergenerational and societal trauma and oppression “endured by native Americans in the context of many conflicts with the dominant U.S. government” (p. 240). More specifically, symptoms from the historical trauma likely precede the trauma of the rape: “Consequently, assessing the effects of sexual assault will involve several layers of a survivor’s history of trauma” (p. 240). Gebhardt and Woody (2012) believe the TLOA allows for guidance and complementary roles for social work and public health professionals to use collaborative practices to assist AI/AN rape survivors. However K. Robertson (2016), a Native American feminist, criticizes TLOA as emerging from and advancing

settler colonial and heteropatriarchal logics that cause violence against Native women in the first place. I suggest that although the Act does contain measures that have the potential to alleviate the experience of violence in Native women’s lives, it also diminishes tribal sovereignty, perpetuates the ongoing encroachment of tribal jurisdiction, regulates the boundaries of Native identity, and limits our ability to envision and enact practices of decolonization. (p. 1)

Responding to Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) It is important in evaluating programs for IPA or the individual survivors of IPA not to fall into the trap of measuring a successful outcome only in terms of whether survivors leave their abusers. Indeed, too much community chest and other funding for shelters and victim advocacy agencies require this outcome measure for continued funding. Many survivors, including women who have been in shelters, return to their abusers. They still may eventually leave, but some stay “forever.” It is also important to recognize that when intervention does result in a survivor leaving an abusive partner, the intervention has no impact on the abuser’s violent and nonviolent abuse. “A woman may have made critically important changes without having left the abuser. Staying in the relationship does not mean the abused woman is inactive or that an intervention has had no effect on her” (J. Brown, 1997, p. 6). Recall the study in Chapter 10 where protection orders (POs) served as an important negotiating and power-leveling tool for some IPA survivors (D. A. Ford, 1991). “The fact that an order is violated does not necessarily mean that it is worthless or that obtaining it was a mistake. The process of obtaining a protection order can be a valuable experience and prepare the woman to take additional actions on her own behalf” (Goldfarb, 2008, p. 1544). Clearly, POs are not effective with all IPA abusers, but it is clear they are effective with some. Finally, as noted repeatedly in this book, many intimate abuse survivors do not have the choice of leaving because it is too dangerous for them and/or their children. One attempt to improve CLS responses to IPA has been the implementation of specialized domestic violence courts to provide court personnel with education on the dynamics prevalent in IPA abuse and victimization. These courts are also expected to be more efficient (less time processing the case) (Cissner, Labriola, & Rempel, 2015; A. M. Collins, Bouffard, & Wilkes, 2019) and to provide therapeutic jurisdiction, which is responses that enhance survivors’ healing and empower them (Cattaneo et al., 2013). More efficient (speedier) court processing is hoped to decrease victims’ recanting (A. M. Collins et al., 2019). Research on these courts has been promising, for the most part. Cissner et al. (2015) assessed 24 New York domestic violence courts and found reduced recidivism and far more efficiency in case processing. They also increased male defendants’ conviction likelihood and jail/prison sentences, but not so for female defendants. A study of a Texas domestic violence court found the speedier the case processing is, the less likely defendants are rearrested for domestic violence (A. M. Collins et al., 2019). A study of nine Florida specialized domestic violence courts was less promising, finding mixed support for victim safety and victim support, but this may be explained by the fact that the specialized domestic violence court professionals received no more IPA training than professionals in the general courts (Coulter et al., 2007). Figure 14.4 also identifies gun restriction legislation as a manner of better responding to GBA. Specifically, a nationwide study comparing various U.S. states’ household firearm ownership levels with homicides from 1990 through 2016 found the level of firearm ownership was strongly associated with intimate partner/domestic homicides (of both women and men) but was unrelated to nonintimate homicides. Stated alternatively, the higher the gun ownership level, the higher the domestic homicide rate. This is consistently borne out by intimate partner homicide research, which shows that the primary weapon is a firearm. Moreover, when firearms are used, there are more victims than “only” the intimate partner; for example, children, police officers, or witnesses may be shot and killed) (Doe & Belknap, 2019). Finally, living in a state that prohibits convicted domestic violence offenders from having guns can be effective (Prickett, Martin-Storey, & Crosnoe, 2018).

Housing is a huge problem for many IPA survivors and their children (Gezinski & Gonzalez-Pons, 2019). One recent study found that investing in home ownership is a potential way to decrease IPA (Boggess & Chamberlain, 2020). These place-based strategies can disrupt IPA, “particularly in [a] disadvantaged neighborhood, [where it] will be especially impactful” (Boggess & Chamberlain, 2020, n.p.). Finally, rape crisis centers and safehouses are extremely important as part of the communitycoordinated response to GBA victims. It is important, however, for these feminist organizations to ensure that they are operating with feminist ideals, because when they do not, the cost can be harming in multiple ways (Abraham, 2000; Villalón, 2010; Whalley, 2019).

Resistance and Fighting Back The research on sexual victimization points to the importance of instilling the confidence to identify and escape potentially threatening situations, as well as to physically fight back, when possible. Although sexually threatening situations may and often do develop to the point where it is impossible to escape, research consistently indicates that fighting back helps deter rapists (Ullman, 2002, 2007). It is vital to remember, however, that (1) GBA is not always avoidable; and (2) GBA abusers, not the victims/survivors, are responsible for these victimizations. Strategies for fighting back include trusting one’s “gut feelings” about situations and not worrying about being “rude,” “ungrateful,” or “prudish” for not going along with unwanted attention or situations that feel “sketchy,” including with well-known people. Research evaluating the best way to resist rape once an actual assault has begun consistently shows that, in most cases, it is best for victims to verbally and physically use resistance and avoidance strategies (Ullman, 2007). Victims who resist are much less likely to experience “completed” rapes than those who do not resist (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Kleck & Sayles, 1990; Ullman & Knight, 1992). Yelling, physically resisting, and/or running away are effective resistance strategies (Bart & O’Brien, 1985; Ullman & Knight, 1992). Clearly, not all rapes are escapable—some women (and men) are simply overpowered despite active resistance. Furthermore, victims who do not resist should not be blamed for their victimizations. However, resistance appears to be the most powerful hindrance of sexual attacks. One study found that women who took a self-defense or assertiveness training prior to being sexually attacked were more likely than women with no such training to report feeling angrier during the attack, to feel less afraid during the attack, and to believe their resistance stopped the attacker or made him less aggressive (Brecklin & Ullman, 2005). These findings stress the usefulness of self-defense and other empowering trainings and classes to deter potential future rapists. Other avenues of resistance are using digital documenting and being an active bystander. Keller, Mendes, and Ringrose (2018) provide a powerful account of ways girls and women “are using digital media platforms to challenge the rape culture they experience in their everyday lives; including street harassment, sexual assault, and the policing of the body and clothing in school settings” (p. 22). One example they use is the #BeenRapedNeverReported hashtag on Twitter in October 2014: While the tweets were diverse, they all carried the common theme that it remained professionally, emotionally, and even physically costly to report sexual violence to authorities, disrupting the prevalent myth that unreported assaults are illegitimate. Within a week, #BeenRapedNeverReported was used over 40,000 times and received extensive coverage by global commercial media outlets, suggesting that the hashtag carried a currency that could not be ignored. (Keller et al., 2018, p. 27) Turning to bystanders, one study found the odds of repeated IPA victimization (which typically has very high revictimization of the same victim by the same abuser) after an early IPA event “decreased by 60%” when a friend(s)/family member(s) was/were present, and especially when they continued to offer social support (B. E. Hayes, 2018). Notably, presence of the abusers’ friends/family members was not related to revictimization. A study of individuals’ bystander interventions in IPA found the most

common barriers were their fear of injury, fear of misinterpretation, and belief that IPA is a private matter (Weitzman, Cowan, & Walsh, 2017).

CHANGES FOR WOMEN WORKING IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM (CLS) Chapters 11 through 13 documented many similar, but some different, issues regarding women working in the CLS in prisons/jails, policing/law enforcement, and as legal professionals. Of the three CLS areas, women in policing have the lowest representation, yet women’s representation in leadership (especially chief or sheriff) positions are far worse among women working in prisons/jails than women in policing. Women’s representation in law schools is over half of the students, yet a gendered “leaky pipeline” persists among people acquiring law degrees. All of these are raced as well as gendered. Women’s representation in judge positions is improving but still not close to representative of their population percentage. Figure 14.5, like Figure 14.2 for offending and 14.3 for GBA, summarizes the recommendations areas for women CLS workers. Overall, the recommendations are to make conscious decisions to gender-balance women in these occupations, including their representations from the lowest to the highest ranks, and to do so by intersectional characteristics (e.g., race and sexual identity). These data must also include who left through the “leaky pipeline” and why. Agencies must make commitments, documentation, and transparency in improving their representation of workers across ranks. They also need to require annual trainings and assessments/reports for everyone from the bottom to the top of these organizations (see Figure 14.5). The recommendations in Figure 14.5 are consistent with the information reported in Chapters 11, 12, and 13 and are, for the most part, selfevident.

Figure 14.5 ● Improvement, Innovation, and Expansion Areas Recommended for Women Working in the CLSa aThis

includes law school administration, faculty, and students.

Some innovative responses are win-win. For example, the general push to make police departments more community-oriented, and less crime-fighting, is also consistent with increasing the recruitment and retention of women officers and having fewer problems with the communities they serve (M. F. Aiello, 2020). Dobrin and

colleagues’ (2016) study of perceptions of promotion in jail/prison staff recommend determining whether there are gender differences in what officers assume is needed for promotions and ensuring everyone knows what they are. Pearce, Wald, and Ballakrishnen (2015) argue that to dismantle gender and racial discrimination in BigLaw firms, it is necessary to understand that their employees do not act as “atomistic individuals,” that is, as workers who are unaffected by other workers in their agencies (p. 2407). Therefore, BigLaw leaders need to take care not to use “difference blindness” to hold all lawyers to seemingly neutral standards, because it normalizes the dominance of white men. Instead, creating a diverse BigLaw workplace requires a bias awareness approach “that encourages identity and awareness and a relational framework [which] is a more promising way to promote equality, equity, and inclusion” (Pearce et al., 2015, p. 2407).

SUMMARY Considerable research is presented in this book describing the invisibility of and injustices experienced by women and girl victims and offenders and women working in the criminal legal system (CLS). The ecological model presented in this chapter stresses the need for making changes in the micro- and macro-levels, and ways that individuals are impacted by a wide range of forces. Restorative justice (RJ), community-coordinated responses (CCRs), and trauma-informed care (TIC) were offered as some of the best means of providing real changes that help survivors, offenders, CLS workers, and communities and agencies. Important advances in terms of societal changes, legal reforms, and employment practices and policies have been made since the 1970s. Nonetheless, gender-based abuse (GBA), women and girl offenders, and women working as professionals in the CLS continue to face damaging stereotypes and discrimination. I hope that the reader has developed a sound knowledge of gender, girls, women, and crime from reading this book, as well as an appreciation for the many intersections with sexism (e.g., racism, homophobia, etc.).

Descriptions of Images and Figures Back to Figure This illustration has five concentric circles joined at the base. Each circle is labeled and has descriptive text on the right. These circles and the text against each of them from the innermost circle to the outermost one read: Circle

Text

Individual

Degree of physical and mental health, attitudes, disposition

Family

Degree of support, love, availability, mental health

Community/Neighborhood Degree of safety, ties to others living nearby, sense of community Institutional

Degree of access to, quality of, and fairness in schools, healthcare, housing opportunities, police, courts, and jails/prisons

Circle

Text

Structural

Degree of sexism, racism, poverty, heterosexism, ableism, anti-immigrant, etc.

REFERENCES Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Research & Health, 25(1), 43–51. Abraham, M. (1999). Sexual abuse in South Asian immigrant marriages. Violence Against Women, 5(6), 591–618. Abraham, M. (2000). Speaking the unspeakable: Marital violence among South Asian immigrants in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Abrahamson, S. S. (1998). Do women judges really make a difference? The American experience. In S. Shetreet (Ed.), Women in law (pp. 195–216). Kluwer Law International. Acoca, L. (1998a). Defusing the time bomb: Understanding and meeting the growing health care needs of incarcerated women in America. Crime & Delinquency, 44(1), 49–69. Acoca, L. (1998b). Outside/inside: The violation of American girls at home, on the streets, and in the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 44(4), 561–589. Acoca, L. (1999). Investing in girls: A 21st century strategy. Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 3–13. Acoca, L., & Austin, J. (1996). The crisis: Women in prison: The women offender sentencing study and alternative sentencing recommendations project. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Adames, S. B., & Campbell, R. (2005). Immigrant Latinas’ conceptualizations of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11(10), 1341–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205280191 Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 563–588. Adams, D. (1992). Biology does not make men more aggressive than women. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 17–25). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Adams-Fuller, T. M. (2003). Living up to her convictions: A view into the life of Vernetta D. Young. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(1), 19–31. Adanu, R. M. K., & Johnson, T. R. B. (2009). Migration and women’s health. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 106(2), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.03.036 Aday, R. H., & Krabill, J. J. (2011). Women aging in prison: A neglected population in the correctional system. Lynne Reinner Publishers. Addington, L. A., & Perumean-Chaney, S. E. (2014). Fatal and nonfatal intimate partner violence: What separates the men from the women for victimizations reported to police? Homicide Studies, 18(2), 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767912471341 Addington, L. A., & Rennison, C. M. (2008). Rape co-occurrence: Do additional crimes affect victim reporting and police clearance of rape? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-008-9043-9

Adhia, A., Austin, S. B., Fitzmaurice, G. M., & Hemenway, D. (2019). The role of intimate partner violence in homicides of children aged 2–14 years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(1), 38– 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.08.028 Adhia, A., Kernic, M. A., Hemenway, D., Vavilala, M. S., & Rivara, F. P. (2019). Intimate Partner Homicide of Adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(6), 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0621 Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Agha, S. (2009). Structural correlates of female homicide: A crossnational analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.09.006 Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64(1), 151–167. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87. Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427801038004001 Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 603–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095371 Agozino, B. (1997). Black women and the criminal justice system: Towards the decolonisation of victimisation. Aldershot, UK:

Ashgate. Ahrens, C. E., Stansell, J., & Jennings, A. (2010). To tell or not to tell: The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors’ recovery. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.631 Aiello, B. L., & McCorkel, J. A. (2018). “‘It will crush you like a bug’: Maternal incarceration, secondary prisonization, and children’s visitation.” Punishment & Society, 20(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517697295 Aiello, M. F. (2020). Influential women? Policing styles in online recruitment materials. Police Quarterly, 23(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611119870263 Ait-Daoud, N., Blevins, D., Khanna, S., Sharma, S., Holstege, C. P., & Amin, P. (2019). Women and addiction: An update. Medical Clinics of North America, 103(4), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2019.03.002 Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29(4), 305–311. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Alarid, L. F., & Vega, O. L. (2010). Identity construction, self perceptions, and criminal behavior of incarcerated women. Deviant Behavior, 31(8), 704–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620903415943 Alberta, H. B., Berry, R. M., & Levine, A. D. (2014). Risk disclosure and the recruitment of oocyte donors: Are advertisers telling the

full story? Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 42(2), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12138 Albonetti, C. A. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processings. Criminology, 24(4), 623–644. Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law & Society Review, 31(4), 789–822. Alder, C. M. (1998). “Passionate and willful” girls: Confronting practices. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(4), 81. Alder, C. M., & Baker, J. (1997). Maternal filicide: More than one story to be told. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(2), 15–39. Alderden, M. A., & Long, L. (2016). Sexual assault victim participation in police investigations and prosecution. Violence and Victims, 31(5), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D14-00103 Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012a). Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decisionmaking when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 525–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212453867 Alderden, M. A., & Ullman, S. E. (2012b). Gender difference or indifference? Detective decision making in sexual assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416465

Alemagno, S. A. (2001). Women in jail: Is substance abuse treatment enough? American Journal of Public Health, 91(5), 798– 800. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press. Allard, P. E. (2007). Research to action: Informing policy makers about the needs of mothers and children at risk of separation. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2–3), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v17n02_03 Allen, A. L. (1997). On being a role model. In Adrien K. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism (pp. 81–87). New York: New York University Press. Allen, C., & Leventhal, B. (1999). History, culture, and identity: What makes GLBT battering different. In Same-sex domestic violence: Strategies for change (pp. 73–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Allen, S., Flaherty, C., & Ely, G. (2010). Throwaway moms: Maternal incarceration and the criminalization of female poverty. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(2), 160–172. Alleyne, V. (2006). Locked up means locked out: Women, addiction and incarceration. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 181–194. Alpert, G. P. (1982). Women prisoners and the law: Which way will the pendulum swing? Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(82)90058-7 Alpert, G. P., & Crouch, B. M. (1991). Cross-gender supervision, personal privacy, and institutional security: Perceptions of jail inmates and staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(3), 304–317.

Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. (Ed.). (1968). Negro women in the judiciary. Chicago, IL: Author. Althuis, M. D., Moghissi, K. S., Westhoff, C. L., Scoccia, B., Lamb, E. J., Lubin, J. H., & Brinton, L. A. (2005). Uterine cancer after use of clomiphene citrate to induce ovulation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161(7), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi084 Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 3–10. Alvarez-Rivera, L. L., Price, A. M., & Ticknor, B. (2017). The effect of attachment and self-control on status offending among Puerto Rican high school students. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9359-1 Amanor-Boadu, Y., Messing, J. T., Stith, S. M., Anderson, J. R., O’Sullivan, C. S., & Campbell, J. C. (2012). Immigrant and nonimmigrant women: Factors that predict leaving an abusive relationship. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212453139 Amar, A. F. (2006). College women’s experience of stalking: Mental health symptoms and changes in routines. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 20(3), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2005.10.003 Ames, L. J., & Dunham, K. T. (2002). Asymptotic justice: Probation as a criminal justice response to intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(1), 6–34. American Bar Association. (2013). A current glance at women in the law. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/wom en/a-current_glance_statistics_feb2013.pdf

American Bar Association. (2018). A current glance at women in the law. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/wom en/a-current-glance-at-women-in-the-law-jan2018.authcheckdam.pdf American Bar Association. (2019). ABA National Lawyer Population Survey: 10-year trend in lawyer demographics. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/mark et_research/national-lawyer-population-demographics-20092019.pdf American Correctional Association. (Ed.). (1990). The female offender: What does the future hold? Alexandria, VA: Author. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. (2018). 2017 Plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/pl astic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2017.pdf American Society of Plastic Surgeons. (2019). 2018 Plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/pl astic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf Amin, V., Flores, C. A., Flores-Lagunes, A., & Parisian, D. J. (2016). The effect of degree attainment on arrests: Evidence from a randomized social experiment. Economics of Education Review, 54, 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.02.006 Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Anderberg, D., & Rainer, H. (2013). Economic abuse: A theory of intrahousehold sabotage. Journal of Public Economics, 97, 282– 295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.008

Anders, M. C., & Christopher, F. S. (2011). A socioecological model of rape survivors’ decisions to aid in case prosecution. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310394802 Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: Norton. Anderson, T. L. (2003). Issues in the availability of health care for women prisoners. In S. F. Sharp (Ed.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 49–60). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Anderson, V. R., Walerych, B. M., Campbell, N. A., Barnes, A. R., Davidson, W. S., Campbell, … Petersen, J. L. (2019). Genderresponsive intervention for female juvenile offenders: A quasiexperimental outcome evaluation. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116677749 Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D., & Lucente, L. (2012). Predicting perceptions of date rape: An examination of perpetrator motivation, relationship length, and gender role beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(13), 2582–2602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512436385 Annamma, S. A., Anyon, Y., Joseph, N. M., Farrar, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., & Simmons, J. (2019). Black girls and school discipline: The complexities of being overrepresented and understudied. Urban Education, 54(2), 211–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916646610 Appier, J. (1998). Policing women: The sexual politics of law enforcement and the LAPD. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Apsler, R., Cummins, M. R., & Carl, S. (2003). Perceptions of the police by female victims of domestic partner violence. Violence Against Women, 9(11), 1318–1335. Archbold, C. A., & Hassell, K. D. (2009). Paying a marriage tax: An examination of the barriers to the promotion of female police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32, 56–74. Archbold, C. A., & Schulz, D. M. (2008). Making rank: The lingering effects of tokenism on female police officers’ promotion aspirations. Police Quarterly, 11(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611107309628 Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3– 4), 249–266. Arditti, J. A. (2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. New York: New York University Press. Armstrong, G. S., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 577–592. Arnold, R. A. (1990). Processes of victimization and criminalization of Black women. Social Justice, 17(3), 153–166. Arriola, K. J., Braithwaite, R. L., & Newkirk, C. F. (2006). An overview of incarcerated women’s health. In R. L. Braithwaite, K. J. Arriola, & C. Newkirk (Eds.), Health issues among incarcerated women (pp. 3–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2012). Substance use coping as a mediator of the relationship between trauma symptoms and substance use consequences among incarcerated females with childhood sexual abuse histories. Substance Use & Misuse, 47(7), 799–808. Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2015). Safer in jail? A comparison of victimization history and psychological adjustment between previously homeless and non-homeless incarcerated women. Feminist Criminology, 10(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114537870 Associated Press. (2020, February 3). First openly gay federal judge dies in New York. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/03/us/ap-us-obitbatts.html Atkins, S., & Hoggett, B. (1984). Women and the law. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Auerhahn, K. (2007). Adjudication outcomes in intimate and nonintimate homicides. Homicide Studies, 11(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767907304121 Auerhahn, K., & Leonard, E. D. (2000). Docile bodies? Chemical restraints and the female inmate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90(2), 599–634. Avakame, E. F., & Fyfe, J. J. (2001). Differential police treatment of male-on-female spousal violence: Additional evidence on the leniency thesis. Violence Against Women, 7(1), 22–45. Aylward, A., & Thomas, J. (1984). Quiescence in women’s prisons litigation: Some exploratory issues. Justice Quarterly, 1(2), 253– 276.

Azzopardi, C., & Smith, T. D. (2019). Paediatric health care in the #MeToo era: Advocating for survivors of sexual violence. Paediatrics & Child Health, 24(4), 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxy186 Babcock, R. L., & DePrince, A. P. (2012). Childhood betrayal trauma and self-blame appraisals among survivors of intimate partner abuse. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13(5), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.694842 Babcock, R. L., & DePrince, A. P. (2013). Factors contributing to ongoing intimate partner abuse: Childhood betrayal trauma and dependence on one’s perpetrator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1385–1402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468248 Bachman, R., & Coker, A. L. (1995). Police involvement in domestic violence: The interactive effects of victim injury, offender’s history of violence, and race. Violence and Victims, 10(2), 91. Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (1994). A contemporary look at the effects of rape law reform: How far have we really come? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 84(3), 554–574. Bachman, R., Rodriguez, S., Kerrison, E. M., & Leon, C. (2019). The recursive relationship between substance abuse, prostitution, and incarceration: Voices from a long-term cohort of women. Victims & Offenders, 14(5), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1628146 Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. E. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey (Special Report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bachman, R., Zaykowski, H., Lanier, C., Poteyeva, M., & Kallmyer, R. (2010). Estimating the magnitude of rape and sexual assault

against American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2), 199– 222. Badner, V., & Margolin, R. (1994). Oral health status among women inmates at Rikers Island Correctional Facility. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 1(1), 55–72. Baghaie, H., Kisely, S., Forbes, M., Sawyer, E., & Siskind, D. J. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between poor oral health and substance abuse. Addiction, 112(5), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13754 Bailey, C. (2013). Exploring female motivations for drug smuggling on the island of Barbados: Evidence from Her Majesty’s prison, Barbados. Feminist Criminology, 8(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085112474837 Baker, J. G. (2003). Glass ceilings or sticky floors? A model of highincome law graduates. Journal of Labor Research, 24(4), 695– 711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-003-1021-2 Baker, M. W., Sugar, N. F., & Eckert, L. O. (2009). Sexual assault of older women: Risk and vulnerability by living arrangement. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 6(4), 79–87. Baker, N. L., Buick, J. D., Kim, S. R., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. L. (2013). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69(3–4), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0218-3 Baker, R. (1996). Sperm wars: The science of sex. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bal, M., & van den Bos, K. (2012). Blaming for a better future: Future orientation and associated intolerance of personal uncertainty lead to harsher reactions toward innocent victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 835–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212442970 Balfour, G., Du Mont, J., & White, D. (2018). “To this day she continues to struggle with the terror imposed upon her”: Rape narratives in victim impact statements. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1342744 Balgamwalla, S. (2016). Trafficking in narratives: Conceptualizing and recasting victims, offenders, and rescuers in the war on human trafficking. Denver Law Review, 94(1), 1–41. Balk, E. M., Earley, A., Avendano, E. A., & Raman, G. (2016). Longterm health outcomes in women with silicone gel breast implants: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(3), 164– 175. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1169 Balkin, J. (1988). Why policemen don’t like policewomen. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16(1), 29–38. Ball, J., & Bostaph, L. G. (2009). He versus she: A gender-specific analysis of legal and extralegal effects on pretrial release for felony defendants. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(2), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450902791286 Ball, M. (2016). Queer criminology as activism. Critical Criminology, 24(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-016-9329-4 Ballan, M. S., & Freyer, M. B. (2012). Self-defense among women with disabilities: An unexplored domain in domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 18(9), 1083–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212461430

Balogun, S. K. (2002). Sexual violence and adolescents: Implications for the mental health of VVF victims. Journal of Human Ecology, 13(4), 295–297. doi:10.1080/09709274.2002.11905550 Balos, B., & Trotzky, K. (1988). Enforcement of the domestic abuse act in Minnesota: A preliminary study. Law and Inequality, 6, 83– 125. Baly, A. R. (2010). Leaving abusive relationships: Constructions of self and situation by abused women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2297–2315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354885 Bancroft, L. (2002). Why does he do that? Inside the minds of angry and controlling men. New York, NY: Putnam. Bancroft, L., Silverman, J. G., & Ritchie, D. (2011). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression: A study of the influence of child-training practices and family interrelationships. New York, NY: Ronald Press. Banks, T. L. (1997). Toward a global critical feminist vision. In Adrien Katherine Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism (2nd ed., pp. 328– 338). New York: New York University Press. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395−424.

Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2007). Adolescents’ time use: Effects on substance use, delinquency and sexual activity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(5), 697–710. Barnett, J. P. (2017). Intersectional harassment and deviant embodiment among autistic adults: (Dis)ability, gender and sexuality. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(11), 1210–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1309070 Barnett, O. W., Lee, C. Y., & Thelen, R. E. (1997). Gender differences in attributions of self-defense and control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against Women, 3(5), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003005002 Barnett, O. W., Martinez, T. E., & Bluestein, B. W. (1995). Jealousy and romantic attachment in maritally violent and nonviolent men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 473–486. Baron, L., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Four theories of rape in American society: A state-level analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42(2), 457–483. Barry, E. M. (1991). Jail litigation concerning women prisoners. The Prison Journal, 71(1), 44–50. Bart, P. B., & O’Brien, P. H. (1985). Stopping rape: Successful survival strategies. Pergamon Press. Barteau, B. (1997). Thirty years of the journey of Indiana’s women judges 1964-1994. Indiana Law Review, 30, 43–202.

Bartlett, H. W., & Rosenblum, A. (1977). Policewoman effectiveness. Civil Service Commission and Denver Police Department. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/44444NCJRS.pdf Bartlett, J. D., & Smith, S. (2019). The role of early care and education in addressing early childhood trauma. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(3–4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12380 Bartol, C. R., Bergen, G. T., Volckens, J. S., & Knoras, K. M. (1992). Women in small-town policing: Job performance and stress. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19(3), 240–259. Basile, K. C. (1999). Rape by acquiescence: The ways in which women “give in” to unwanted sex with their husbands. Violence Against Women, 5(9), 1036–1058. Basile, K. C. (2008). Histories of violent victimization among women who reported unwanted sex in marriages and intimate relationships: Findings from a qualitative study. Violence Against Women, 14(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207311857 Bassuk, E., Dawson, R., Huntington, N., Salomon, A., Bassuk, S., & Browne, A. (2001). Secondary data analysis of the etiology, course and consequences of intimate partner violence against extremely poor women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=188507 Bates, S. (2017). Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors. Feminist Criminology, 12(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116654565 Batlan, F. (2005). Engendering legal history. Law & Social Inquiry, 30(4), 823–851.

Battle, N. T. (2016). From slavery to Jane Crow to Say Her Name: An intersectional examination of Black women and punishment. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 15(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.2979/meridians.15.1.07 Batton, C., & Wright, E. M. (2019). Patriarchy and the structure of employment in criminal justice: differences in the experiences of men and women working in the legal profession, corrections, and law enforcement. Feminist Criminology, 14(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118769749 Baucom, S., Baucom, K., Brown, P., & Mouzon, H. (2006). Tuberculosis: No longer the “white plague.” In R. L. Braithwaite, K. J. Arriola, & C. Newkirk (Eds.), Health issues among incarcerated women (pp. 193–220). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United States (Special Report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/stalking-victimization.pdf Baum, K., & Klaus, P. A. (2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Baumann, R. M., Hamilton-Wright, S., Riley, D. L., Brown, K., Hunt, C., Michalak, A., & Matheson, F. I. (2019). Experiences of violence and head injury among women and transgender women sex workers. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0334-0 Baumer, E. P., Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (2003). Changes in police notification for rape, 1973-2000. Criminology, 41(3), 841– 872.

Baumgartner, F. R., Epp, D. A., Shoub, K., & Love, B. (2017). Targeting young men of color for search and arrest during traffic stops: Evidence from North Carolina, 2002–2013. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(1), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1160413 Baumle, D. (2018). Creating the trauma-to-prison pipeline: How the U.S. justice system criminalizes structural and interpersonal trauma experienced by girls of color. Family Court Review, 56(4), 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12384 Baunach, P. J. (1985). Mothers in prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Baunach, P. J. (1992). Critical problems of women in prison. In I. L. Moyer (Ed.), The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system: Offenders, victims, and professionals (2nd ed., pp. 99– 112). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Baunach, P. J., & Murton, T. O. (1973). Women in prison: An awakening minority. Crime & Corrections, 1(2), 4–12. Bazley, T. D., Lersch, K. M., & Mieczkowski, T. (2007). Officer force versus suspect resistance: A gendered analysis of patrol officers in an urban police department. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(2), 183–192. Beccalossi, C. (2008). [Review of the book Criminal man, by C. Lombroso, ed. & trans. by M. Gibson and N. H. Rafter]. History of the Human Sciences, 21(2), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951080210020604 Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005-06 (NCJ Report No. 215337). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrjca0506.pdf

Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Sexual victimization in state and federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Beck, V. S., Boys, S., Rose, C., & Beck, E. (2012). Violence against women in video games: A prequel or sequel to rape myth acceptance? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(15), 3016– 3031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512441078 Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Becker, S., & McCorkel, J. A. (2011). The gender of criminal opportunity: The impact of male co-offenders on women’s crime. Feminist Criminology, 6(2), 79–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110396501 Beckman, K., Shipherd, J., Simpson, T., & Lehavot, K. (2018). Military sexual assault in transgender veterans: Results from a nationwide survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31(2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22280 Bègue, L., & Roché, S. (2009). Multidimensional social control variables as predictors of drunkenness among French adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 171–191. Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2012). Modeling the effects of victim behavior and moral character on prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Violence and Victims, 27(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.1.3 Beinish, D. (1998). Are women more successful in the public service than in private practice? In S. Shetreet (Ed.), Women in Law (pp. 99–104). Kluwer Law International.

Belknap, J. (1987). Routine activity theory and the risk of rape: Analyzing ten years of National Crime Survey data. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2(4), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/088740348700200403 Belknap, J. (1991). Women in conflict: An analysis of women correctional officers. Women & Criminal Justice, 2(2), 89–115. Belknap, J. (1997). Variations in perspectives and quality in three books on rape. Criminal Justice Review, 22(1), 77–84. Belknap, J. (2000). Programming and health care accessibility for incarcerated women. In J. James (Ed.), States of confinement: Policing, detention and prisons (pp. 109–123). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Belknap, J. (2004). Meda Chesney-Lind: The mother of feminist criminology. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(2), 1–23. Belknap, J. (2010a). “Offending women”: A double entendre. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 1061–1097. Belknap, J. (2010b). Rape: Too hard to report and too easy to discredit victims. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1335–1344. Belknap, J. (2015). Activist criminology: Criminologists’ responsibility to advocate for social and legal justice. Criminology, 53(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12063 Belknap, J. (2016). Asian criminology’s expansion and advancement of research and crime control. Asian Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-016-9240-7

Belknap, J., & Bowers, M. (2016). Girls and women in gangs. In C. A. Cuevas & C. M. Rennison (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the psychology of violence (pp. 211–225). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Belknap, J., Chu, A. T., & DePrince, A. P. (2012). The roles of phones and computers in threatening and abusing women victims of male intimate partner abuse. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 19(2), 373–406. Belknap, J., & Erez, E. (2013). The victimization of women on college campuses: Courtship violence, date rape, and sexual harassment. In Bonnie S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan III (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 211– 235). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Belknap, J., Fleury, R., Melton, H. C., Sullivan, C. M., & Leisenring, A. (2001). To go or not to go? Preliminary findings on battered women’s decisions regarding court cases. In H. M. Eigenberg (Ed.), Woman battering in the United States: Till death do us part (pp. 319–326). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Belknap, J., & Grant, D. (2018). Fifty years after the 1967 Crime Commission Report: How nonpolicing domestic violence research and policies have changed and expanded. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12370 Belknap, J., Hartman, J. L., & Lippen, V. L. (2010). Misdemeanor domestic violence cases in the courts: A detailed description of the cases. In V. Garcia & J. E. Clifford (Eds.), Female victims of crime: Reality reconsidered (pp. 259–278). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (2006). The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282897

Belknap, J., Holsinger, K., & Dunn, M. (1997). Understanding incarcerated girls: The results of a focus group study. The Prison Journal, 77(4), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855597077004003 Belknap, J., Holsinger, K., & Little, J. (2012). Sexual minority status, abuse, and self-harming behaviors among incarcerated girls. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5(2), 173–185. Belknap, J., Holsinger, K., & Little, J. S. (2014). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth incarcerated in delinquent facilities. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 207–228). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9188-0_11 Belknap, J., Larson, D.-L., Abrams, M. L., & Garcia, C. (2012). Types of intimate partner homicides committed by women: Self-defense, proxy/retaliation, and sexual proprietariness. Homicide Studies, 16(4), 359–379. Belknap, J., & McCall, K. D. (1994). Woman battering and police referrals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(94)90019-1 Belknap, J., & McDonald, C. (2010). Judges’ attitudes about and experiences with sentencing circles in intimate-partner abuse cases. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52(4), 369–395. Belknap, J., & Melton, H. (2005). Are heterosexual men also victims of intimate partner abuse? 1–12. Retrieved from https://vawnet.org/material/are-heterosexual-men-also-victimsintimate-partner-abuse/. Belknap, J., & Potter, H. (2006). Intimate partner abuse. In C. M. Renzetti, L. Goodstein, & S. L. Miller (Eds.), Rethinking gender,

crime, and justice: Feminist readings (pp. 168–184). Roxbury. Belknap, J., & Shelley, J. K. (1993). The new lone ranger: Policewomen on patrol. American Journal of Police, 12(2), 47–75. Belknap, J., Winter, E. J., & Cady, B. (2003). Professionals’ assessments of the needs of delinquent girls: The results of a focus group study. In B. E. Bloom (Ed.), Gendered justice: Addressing female offenders (pp. 209–239). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Bell, D. A. (1973). Race, racism, and American law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Bell, D. J. (1982). Policewomen: Myths and reality. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 10(1), 112–120. Bell, D. J., & Bell, S. L. (1991). The victim-offender relationship as a determinant factor in police dispositions of family violence incidents: A replication study. Policing and Society: An International Journal, 1(3), 225–234. Benard, C., & Schlaffer, E. (1997). “The man in the street”: Why he harasses. In L. Richardson, V. A. Taylor, & N. Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers IV (pp. 395–398). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Benedict, J. R. (1998). Athletes and acquaintance rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Beneke, T. (1982). Men on rape. St. Martin’s Press. Bennett, L., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Systemic obstacles to the criminal prosecution of a battering partner: A

victim perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(7), 761– 772. Benton, D. (1992). Hormones and human aggression. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 37–48). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bergen, R. K. (1995). Surviving wife rape: How women define and cope with the violence. Violence Against Women, 1(2), 117–138. Bergen, R. K. (1996). Wife rape: Understanding the response of survivors and service providers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Berger, M. A. (1980). Litigation on behalf of women: A review for the Ford Foundation. New York, NY: Ford Foundation. Bergman, M. E., Walker, J. M., & Jean, V. A. (2016). A simple solution to policing problems: Women! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(3), 590–597. Berk, R. A., Berk, S. F., Loseke, D. R., & Rauma, D. (1983). Combat and other family violence myths. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 197–212). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Berk, R. A., & Newton, P. J. (1985). Does arrest really deter wife battery? An effort to replicate the findings of the Minneapolis Spouse Abuse Experiment. American Sociological Review, 50(2), 253–262. Berk, S. F., & Loseke, D. R. (1981). “Handling” family violence: Situational determinants of police arrest in domestic disturbances. Law & Society Review, 15(2), 317–346.

Berkson, L. (1982). Women on the bench: A brief history. Judicature, 65(6), 286–293. Bermea, A. M., Khaw, L., Hardesty, J. L., Rosenbloom, L., & Salerno, C. (2020). Mental and active preparation: Examining variations in women’s processes of preparing to leave abusive relationships: Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3–4), 988– 1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517692332 Bernat, F. P. (1984). Gender disparities in the setting of bail: Prostitution offenses in Buffalo, NY, 1977-1979. In S. Chaneles (Ed.), Gender issues, sex offenses, and criminal justice: Current trends (pp. 21–48). New York, N.Y: Haworth Press. Bernat, F. P. (1985). New York State’s prostitution statute: Cast study of the discriminatory application of a gender neutral law. In C. SchWeber & C. Feinman (Eds.), Criminal justice, politics, and women: The aftermath of legally mandated change (pp. 103–120). Bernat, F. P. (1992). Women in the legal profession. In I. L. Moyer (Ed.), The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system (2nd ed., pp. 307–322). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Bernat, F. P. (2002). Rape law reform. In J. F. Hodgson & D. S. Kelley (Eds.), Sexual violence: Policies, practices, and challenges in the United States and Canada (pp. 85–99). Westport, CT: Praeger. Bernat, F. P., & Zupan, L. L. (1989). An assessment of personnel processes pertaining to women in a traditionally male dominated occupation: Affirmative Action policies in prisons and jails. The Prison Journal, 69(2), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558906900209 Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in

adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318. Berns, S. (1999). To speak as a judge: Difference, voice, and power. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Dartmouth. Bernstein, E. (2010). Militarized humanitarianism meets carceral feminism: The politics of sex, rights, and freedom in contemporary antitrafficking campaigns. Signs, 36(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/652918 Bernstein, E. (2012). Carceral politics as gender justice? The “traffic in women” and neoliberal circuits of crime, sex, and rights. Theory and Society, 41(3), 233–259. Berry, P. E., & Eigenberg, H. M. (2003). Role strain and incarcerated mothers: Understanding the process of mothering. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v15n01_06 Berton, F., Bureau, M.-C., & Rist, B. (2017). Father figures and cultural diversity in France. Men and Masculinities, 20(5), 552– 569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17727799 Beyer, K., Wallis, A. B., & Hamberger, L. K. (2015). Neighborhood environment and intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(1), 16–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013515758 Bickle, G. S., & Peterson, R. D. (1991). The impact of gender-based family roles on criminal sentencing. Social Problems, 38(3), 372– 394. Bilchik, S. (1999). Minorities in the juvenile justice system. U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

https://www.ncjrs.org/pdffilesl/ojjdp/179007.pdf Binion, K., & Gray, M. J. (2020). Minority stress theory and internalized homophobia among LGB sexual assault survivors: Implications for posttraumatic adjustment. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1707987 Binkley-Jackson, D., Carter, V. L., & Rolison, G. (1993). African American women in prison. In B. R. Fletcher, L. D. Shaver, & D. G. Moon (Eds.), Women prisoners (pp. 65–74). Westport, CT: Praeger. Biroscak, B. J., Smith, P. K., & Post, L. A. (2006). A practical approach to public health surveillance of violent deaths related to intimate partner relationships. Public Health Reports, 121(4), 393– 399. Bitton, Y., & Shavit, T. (2015). Differences between men’s and women’s monetary valuation of crime avoidance behavior. Feminist Criminology, 10(2), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115571932 Bjerregaard, B. (2002). Operationalizing gang membership: The impact measurement on gender differences in gang selfidentification and delinquent involvement. Women and Criminal Justice, 13(2–3), 79–100. Bjerregaard, B., & Cochran, J. A. (2012). The role of school-related bonding factors and gender: Correlates of gang membership among adolescents. Women and Criminal Justice, 22(1), 30–53. Bjerregaard, B., & Smith, C. (1993). Gender differences in gang participation, delinquency, and substance use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(4), 329–355.

Björkqvist, K., & Niemelä, P. (1992). Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Blaauw, E., Winkel, F. W., Arensman, E., Sheridan, L., & Freeve, A. (2002). The toll of stalking: The relationship between features of stalking and psychopathology of victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(1), 50–63. Black, T., Belknap, J., & Ginsburg, J. (2012). Racism, sexism, and aggression: A study of black and white fraternities. In T. L. Brown, G. Parks, & C. M. Phillips (Eds.), African American fraternities and sororities: The legacy and the vision (2nd ed., pp. 395–423). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Blackburn, A. G., Taylor, R. W., & Davis, J. E. (2010). Understanding the complexities of human trafficking and child sexual exploitation: The case of Southeast Asia. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(1–2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974451003641099 Blackburne-Rigsby, A. (2009). Black women judges: The historical journey of black women to the nation’s highest courts. Howard Law Journal, 53(3), 645–698. Blackwell, B. S. (2000). Perceived sanction threats, gender, and crime: A test and elaboration of power-control theory. Criminology, 38(2), 439–488. Blackwell, B. S. (2003). Power-control and social bonds: Exploring the effect of patriarchy. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/0888431032000115655 Blackwell, B. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). On the relationships between gender, power control, self-control, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 1–17.

Blackwell, B. S., & Reed, M. D. (2003). Power-control as a betweenand within-family model: Reconsidering the unit of analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(5), 385–400. Blackwell, B. S., Sellers, C. S., & Schlaupitz, S. M. (2002). A powercontrol theory of vulnerability to crime and adolescent role exits— Revisited. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 39(2), 199–218. Blankenship, K. M. (1993). Bringing gender and race in: U.S. employment discrimination policy. Gender & Society, 7(2), 204– 226. Block, C. R., Blokland, A. A. J., van der Werff, C., van Os, R., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). Long-term patterns of offending in women. Feminist Criminology, 5(1), 73–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109356520 Block, C. R., & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime & Delinquency, 41(4), 496–526. Block, K. J., & Potthast, M. J. (1998). Girl scouts beyond bars: Facilitating parent-child contact in correctional settings. Child Welfare, 77(5), 561–578. Bloch, P. B., & Anderson, D. (1974). Policewomen on patrol: Final report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Bloom, B. (1993). Incarcerated mothers and their children: Maintaining family ties. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), Female offenders: Meeting needs of a neglected population (pp. 60–68). Laurel, MD: Author. Bloom, B., Owen, B., Rosenbaum, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (2003). Focusing on girls and young women: A gendered perspective on

female delinquency. Women & Criminal Justice, 14(2/3), 117. Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children? A reapraisal of the children of incarcerated mothers in America. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional policies, and gender composition of workplace. Gender & Society, 25(6), 764–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211424741 Boeringer, S. B. (1996). Influences of fraternity membership, athletics, and male living arrangements on sexual aggression. Violence Against Women, 2(2), 134–147. Bogal-Allbritten, R. B., & Allbritten, W. L. (1985). The hidden victims: Courtship violence among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 26(3), 201–204. Boggess, L. N., & Chamberlain, A. W. (2020). Investing in neighborhoods: The mitigating role of home mortgage loans on intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519900312 Bohmert, M. N., & DeMaris, A. (2018). Cumulative disadvantage and the role of transportation in community supervision. Crime & Delinquency, 64(8), 1033–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716686344 Boisvert, D., Wright, J. P., Knopik, V., & Vaske, J. (2013). A twin study of sex differences in self-control. Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 529–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.610762

Bonger, W. A. (1969). Criminality and economic conditions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bonneau, C. W., & Rice, H. M. (2009). Impartial judges? Race, institutional context, and U.S. state supreme courts. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 9(4), 381–403. Bonnes, S. (2017). The bureaucratic harassment of U.S. servicewomen. Gender & Society, 31(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217736006 Bonnes, S. (2019). Service-women’s responses to sexual harassment: the importance of identity work and masculinity in a gendered organization. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219873433 Bonney, L. E., Clarke, J. G., Simmons, E. M., Rose, J. S., & Rich, J. D. (2008). Racial/ethnic sexual health disparities among incarcerated women. Journal of the National Medical Association, 100(5), 553–558. Bonomi, A. E., Altenburger, L. E., & Walton, N. L. (2013). “Double crap!” Abuse and harmed identity in Fifty Shades of Grey. Journal of Women’s Health, 22(9), 733–744. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344 Bonomi, A. E., Gangamma, R., Locke, C. R., Katafiasz, H., & Martin, D. (2011). “Meet me at the hill where we used to park”: Interpersonal processes associated with victim recantation. Social Science & Medicine, 73(7), 1054–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.005 Bonthuys, E. (2008). The personal and the judicial: Sex, gender and impartiality. South African Journal on Human Rights, 24(2), 239– 262.

Boonzaier, F. A., & van Schalkwyk, S. (2011). Narrative possibilities: Poor women of color and the complexities of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 17(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210397796 Booth, J. A., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. P. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and risky behavior: A gendered analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 423–456. Boothroyd, L. G., & Cross, C. P. (2016). The impact of parenthood on physical aggression: Evidence from criminal data. Aggressive Behavior, 42(6), 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21652 Borduin, C. M., & Ronis, S. T. (2012). Research note: Individual, family, peer, and academic characteristics of female serious juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(4), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012440108 Boritch, H. (1992). Gender and criminal court outcomes: An historical analysis. Criminology, 30(3), 293–325. Boritch, H., & Hagan, J. (1990). A century of crime in Toronto: Gender, class, and patterns of xsocial control, 1859 to 1955. Criminology, 28(4), 567–599. Bortner, M. A., Sunderland, M. L., & Winn, R. (1985). Race and the impact of juvenile deinstitutionalization. Crime & Delinquency, 31(1), 35–46. Bosick, S. J., Rennison, C. M., Gover, A. R., & Dodge, M. (2012). Reporting violence to the police: Predictors through the life course. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(6), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.001

Bossarte, R. M., Simon, T. R., & Barker, L. (2006). Characteristics of homicide followed by suicide incidents in multiple states, 2003-04. Injury Prevention, 12(Suppl. 2), 33–38. Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender & Society, 10(2), 133–147. Bosworth, M. (1999). Engendering resistance: Agency and power in women’s prisons. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Bottcher, J. (1995). Gender as social control: A qualitative study of incarcerated youths and their siblings in greater Sacramento. Justice Quarterly Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 33–57. Bottcher, J. (2001). Social practices of gender: How gender relates to delinquency in the everyday lives of high-risk youths. Criminology, 39(4), 893–931. Boudin, C. (2011). Children of incarcerated parents: The child’s constitutional right to the family relationship. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101, 77–118. Bowker, L. H. (1981). Women and crime in America. New York, NY: Macmillan. Bowker, L. H. (1982). Police services to battered women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9(4), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854882009004005 Bowman, C. G. (1992). The arrest experiments: A feminist critique. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83(1), 201–208.

Bowman, C. G. (1993). Street harassment and the informal ghettoization of women. Harvard Law Review, 106(3), 517–580. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341656 Bowman, M. J. (1939). Causes of arrest of women committed to the Massachusetts State Reformatory. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 30(1), 77–82. Bows, H. (2017). Violence against older women. In N. Lombard (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of gender and violence (pp. 183– 195). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Box, S., & Hale, C. (1983). Liberation and female criminality in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 23(1), 35–49. Box, S., & Hale, C. (1984). Liberation/emancipation, economic marginalization, or less chivalry: The relevance of three theoretical arguments to female crime patterns in England and Wales, 19511980. Criminology, 22(4), 473–497. Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L., & Martin, A. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 389–411. Boyd, C. L., & Nelson, M. J. (2017). The effects of trial judge gender and public opinion on criminal sentencing decisions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(6), 1819–1843. Boyd, L. M., & Dumpson, K. C. (2019). Black lives matter: The watchdog for the criminal justice system. In B. Berry (Ed.), Appearance bias and crime (pp. 94–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Boyd, S. C. (1999). Mothers and illicit drugs: Transcending the myths. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Boyd, S. C. (2004). From witches to crack moms: Women, drug law, and policy. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Boye-Beaman, J., Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1993). Male premarital aggression and gender identity among black and white newlywed couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(2), 303–313. Brady, P. Q., & Nobles, M. R. (2017). The dark figure of stalking: Examining law enforcement response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(20), 3149–3173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515596979 Bradley, M. S., & Engen, R. L. (2016). Leaving prison: A multilevel investigation of racial, ethnic, and gender disproportionality in correctional release. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714557023 Bradley, R. G., & Davino, K. M. (2002). Women’s perceptions of the prison environment: When prison is “the safest place I’ve ever been.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 351–359. Braithwaite, R. L., Treadwell, H. M., & Ariola, K. R. J. (2008). Health disparities and incarcerated women: A population ignored. American Journal of Public Health, 98(Suppl. 1), S173–S175. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2005.065375 Braungart, M. M., Braungart, R. G., & Hoyer, W. J. (1980). Age, sex, and social-factors in fear of crime. Sociological Focus, 13(1), 55– 66. Bravo, K. E. (2011). The role of the transatlantic slave trade in contemporary anti-human trafficking discourse. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 9, 555–598.

Brecklin, L. R., & Ullman, S. E. (2005). Self-defense or assertiveness training and women’s responses to sexual attacks. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504272894 Breen, P. D., & Johnson, B. D. (2018). Military justice: Case processing and sentencing decisions in America’s “other” criminal courts. Justice Quarterly, 35(4), 639–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1335763 Breines, W., & Gordon, L. (1983). The new scholarship on family violence. Signs, 8(3), 490–531. Brener, N. D., Simon, T. R., Krug, E. G., & Lowy, R. (1999). Recent trends in violence-related behaviors among high school students in the United States. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(5), 440–446. Brennan, P. K. (2002). Women sentenced to jail in New York City. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing. Brennan, P. K. (2006). Sentencing female misdemeanants: An examination of the direct and indirect effects of race/ethnicity. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 60–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600552477 Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., Dieterich, W., Salisbury, E. J., & van Voorhis, P. (2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1481– 1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777 Brewster, D. R. (2003). Does rehabilitative justice decrease recidivism for women prisoners in Oklahoma? In S. F. Sharp (Ed.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 29–45). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brewster, M. P. (2000). Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 41–54. Brisson, N. J. (1981). Battering husbands: A survey of abusive men. Victimology: An International Journal, 6, 338–344. Britt, C. L. (2009). Modeling the distribution of sentence length decisions under a guidelines system: An application of quantile regression models. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(4), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9066-x Britton, D. M. (1997a). Gendered organizational logic: Policy and practice in men’s and women’s prisons. Gender & Society, 11(6), 796–818. Britton, D. M. (1997b). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sex matter? Criminology, 35(1), 85–105. Britton, D. M. (2000a). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 57–76. Britton, D. M. (2000b). [Review of Review of gender and community policing: Walking the talk, by S. L. Miller]. Social Forces, 78(4), 1582–1583. https://doi.org/10.2307/3006191 Britton, D. M. (2003). At work in the iron cage: The prison as gendered organization. New York: NYU Press. Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost subjects, contested objects: Toward a psychoanalytic inquiry of learning. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Brodyaga, L. (1975). Rape and its victims: A report for citizens, health facilities, and criminal justice agencies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Broidy, L. (1995). Direct supervision and delinquency: Assessing the adequacy of structural proxies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(6), 541–554. Broidy, L. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9–36. Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275–306. Broidy, L., Albright, D., & Denman, K. (2016). Deterring future incidents of intimate partner violence: Does type of formal intervention matter? Violence Against Women, 22(9), 1113–1133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215617552 Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p17.pdf Brook, D. W., Brook, J. S., Rubenstone, E., Zhang, C., & Saar, N. S. (2011). Developmental associations between externalizing behaviors, peer delinquency, drug use, perceived neighborhood crime, and violent behavior in urban communities. Aggressive Behavior, 37(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20397 Brooks, C. (2019). Sheriffs’ offices personnel, 2016 (NCJ Report No. 252834). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/so16p.pdf

Brousseau, E. C., Ahn, S., & Matteson, K. A. (2019). Cervical cancer screening access, outcomes, and prevalence of dysplasia in correctional facilities: A systematic review. Journal of Women’s Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7440 Brown, A. L., Testa, M., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2009). Psychological consequences of sexual victimization resulting from force, incapacitation, or verbal coercion. Violence Against Women, 15(8), 898–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209335491 Brown, J. (1997). European policewomen: A comparative research perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25(1), 1–19. Brown, J. (2016). Revisiting the classics: Women in control? The role of women in law enforcement: Frances Heidensohn. Policing and Society, 26(2), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1120415 Brown, J., Hazenberg, A., & Ormiston, C. (1999). Policewomen: An international comparison. In R. I. Mawby (Ed.), Policing across the world: Issues for the twenty-first century (pp. 204–225). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Brown, J. M. (1998). Aspects of discriminatory treatment of women police officers serving in forces in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 38(2), 265–282. Brown, L. M., Chesney-Lind, M., & Stein, N. (2007). Patriarchy matters. Violence Against Women, 13(12), 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207310430 Brown, S. E. (1984). Police responses to wife beating: Neglect of a crime of violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12(3), 277–288.

Brown, T. C., Baldwin, J. M., Dierenfeldt, R., & McCain, S. (2020). Playing the game: A qualitative exploration of the female experience in a hypermasculine policing environment. Police Quarterly, 23(2), 143–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611119883423 Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York, NY: Free Press. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 301–322. Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1999). The impact of recent partner violence on poor women’s capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 393–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778019922181284 Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1989). Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides. Law & Society Review, 23(1), 75–94. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Brownstone, L. M., Holliman, B. D., Gerber, H. R., & Monteith, L. L. (2018). The phenomenology of military sexual trauma among women veterans. Psychology of Women Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318791154 Brubaker, S. J. (2019). Campus-based sexual assault victim advocacy and Title IX: Revisiting tensions between grassroots activism and the criminal justice system. Feminist Criminology, 14(3), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118772087

Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the national survey of families and households. Gender & Society, 4(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004001005 Bryant, K. L. (1969). Kate Barnard, organized labor, and social justice in Oklahoma during the progressive era. Journal of Southern History, 35(2), 145–164. Bryant, L. S. (1918). The women at the House of Correction in Holmesburg, Pennsylvania. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 8(6), 844–889. Bryant-Davis, T., Chung, H., & Tillman, S. (2009). From the margins to the center: Ethnic minority women and the mental health effects of sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(4), 330–357. Buchanan, K. S. (2012). Engendering rape. UCLA Law Review, 59(6), 1630–1689. Buchanan, N. T., Bergman, M. E., Bruce, T. A., Woods, K. C., & Lichty, L. L. (2009). Unique and joint effects of sexual and racial harassment on college students’ well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 267–285. Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 137–151. Buchanan, N. T., & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women & Therapy, 25(3–4), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v25n03_08

Bucher, J., & Manasse, M. (2011). When screams are not released: A study of communication and consent in acquaintance rape situations. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(2), 123–140. Buckle, A., & Farrington, D. P. (1984). An observational study of shoplifting. British Journal of Criminology, 24(1), 63–73. Budd, K. M., Rocque, M., & Bierie, D. M. (2019). Deconstructing incidents of campus sexual assault: Comparing male and female victimizations. Sexual Abuse-a Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(3), 296–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217706708 Bui, H. N. (2001). Domestic violence victims’ behavior in favor of prosecution: Effects of gender relations. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(4), 51–76. Bui, H. N. (2004). In the adopted land: Abused immigrant women and the criminal justice system. Westport, CT: Praeger. Bui, H. N., & Morash, M. (1999). Domestic violence in the Vietnamese immigrant community: An exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 5(7), 769–795. Buist, C. L., & Lenning, E. (2016). Queer criminology. New York, NY: Routledge. Bumiller, K. (2008). In an abusive state: How neoliberalism appropriated the feminist movement against sexual violence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bunch, B. J., Foley, L. A., & Urbina, S. P. (1983). The psychology of violent female offenders: A sex-role perspective. The Prison Journal, 63(2), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558306300206

Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2004). Pregnancy as a stimulus for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19(4), 243–247. Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential associationreinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/798612 Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282899 Burgess-Proctor, A. (2011). Pathways of victimization and resistance: Toward a feminist theory of battered women’s helpseeking. Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 309–346. Burgess-Proctor, A., Huebner, B. M., & Durso, J. M. (2016). Comparing the effects of maternal and paternal incarceration on adult daughters’ and sons’ criminal justice system involvement: A gendered pathways analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(8), 1034–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816643122 Burke, M. (1994). Homosexuality as deviance: The case of the gay police officer. The British Journal of Criminology, 34(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048402 Burke, M. (1995). Identities and disclosures: The case of lesbian and gay police officers. The Psychologist, 8(12), 543–547. Burnes, D., Acierno, R., & Hernandez-Tejada, M. (2019). Helpseeking among victims of elder abuse: Findings from the National Elder Mistreatment Study. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 74(5), 891–896. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby122

Burt, M. R., & Albin, R. S. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(3), 212–230. Butcher, K. F., Park, K. H., & Piehl, A. M. (2017). Comparing apples to oranges: Differences in women’s and men’s incarceration and sentencing outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 35, S201– S234. https://doi.org/10.1086/691276 Butler, A. M. (1997). Gendered justice in the American West: Women prisoners in men’s penitentiaries. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Butler, C. N. (2015). The racial roots of human trafficking. UCLA Law Review, 62(6), 53. Button, D. M., & Miller, S. L. (2013). Teen dating relationships and outcomes of well-being: Examining gender differences in nonviolent and violent dating relationships. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.806839 Buvinic, M., Gupta, M. D., Casabonne, U., & Verwimp, P. (2013). Violent conflict and gender inequality: An overview. World Bank Research Observer, 28(1), 110–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lks011 Buzawa, E. S., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining police response to domestic violence victims—The role of victim preference. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 610–623. Buzawa, E. S., & Hotaling, G. T. (2006). The impact of relationship status, gender, and minor status in the police response to domestic assaults. Victims and Offenders, 1(4), 323–360.

Byrd, J. A. (2011). The transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonialism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of attachment for infants raised in a prison nursery. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730903417011 Cahill, B. S., Coolidge, F. L., Segal, D. L., Klebe, K. J., Marle, P. D., & Overmann, K. A. (2012). Prevalence of ADHD and its subtypes in male and female adult prison inmates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2004 Cahill, A. J. (2001). Rethinking rape. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Cahn, N. R. (1992). Innovative approaches to the prosecution of domestic violence crimes: An overview. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic violence: The changing criminal justice response (24377721; pp. 161–180). Auburn House. Cailleau, V., Harika-Germaneau, G., Delbreil, A., & Jaafari, N. (2018). Le stalking: De la «poursuite romantique» à la prédation sexuelle. La Presse Médicale, 47(6), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2018.03.002 Calobrace, M. B., Schwartz, M. R., Zeidler, K. R., Pittman, T. A., Cohen, R., & Stevens, W. G. (2018). Long-term safety of textured and smooth breast implants. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 38(1), 38– 48. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx157 Camacho-Thompson, D. E., & Vargas, R. (2018). Organized community activity participation and the dynamic roles of neighborhood violence and gender among Latino adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(1–2), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12267

Camp, A. R. (2018). Pursuing accountability for perpetrators of intimate partner violence: The peril (and utility?) of shame. Boston University Law Review, 98(6), 1677–1736. Campaniello, N., & Gavrilova, E. (2018). Uncovering the gender participation gap in crime. European Economic Review, 109, 289– 304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.03.014 Campbell, A. (1984a). The girls in the gang: A report from New York City. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Campbell, A. (1984b). Girls’ talk: The social representation of aggression by female gang members. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11(2), 139–156. Campbell, A. (1987). Self-definition by rejection: The case of gang girls. Social Problems, 34(5), 451–466. Campbell, A. (1990). Female participation in gangs. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 163–182). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Campbell, A. (1991). On the invisibility of the female delinquent peer group. Women & Criminal Justice, 2(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v02n01_04 Campbell, A. (1999a). Female gang members’ social construction of female gangs. In M. Chesney-Lind & J. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 248– 255). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Campbell, A. (1999b). Self-definition by rejection: The case of gang girls. In M. Chesney-Lind & J. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 100–117). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press.

Campbell, B. A., Menaker, T. A., & King, W. R. (2015). The determination of victim credibility by adult and juvenile sexual assault investigators. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.001 Campbell, J. C. (1992). If I can’t have you, no one can”: Power and control in homicide of female partners. In J. Radford & D. E. H. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The politics of woman killing (pp. 99– 113). Twayne. Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246–269. Campbell, J. C., & Soeken, K. L. (1999). Forced sex and intimate partner violence: Effects on women’s risk and women’s health. Violence Against Women, 5(9), 1017–1035. Campbell, J. K., Rothman, E. F., Shareef, F., & Siegel, M. B. (2019). The relative risk of intimate partner and other homicide victimization by state-level gender inequity in the United States, 2000–2017. Violence and Gender, 6(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2019.0023 Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702 Campbell, R., Bybee, D., Kelley, K. D., Dworkin, E. R., & Patterson, D. (2012). The impact of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program services on law enforcement investigational practices: A mediational analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(2), 169– 184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811428038

Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Bybee, D. (2011). Using mixed methods to evaluate a community intervention for sexual assault survivors: A methodological tale. Violence Against Women, 17(3), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211398622 Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Bybee, D. (2012). Prosecution of adult sexual assault cases: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of a sexual assault nurse examiner program. Violence Against Women, 18(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212440158 Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(12), 1239–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016012002 Canter, R. J. (1982). Sex differences in self-report delinquency. Criminology, 20(3–4), 373–394. Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531958 Capowich, G. E., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2001). General strain theory, situational anger, and social networks: An assessment of conditioning influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(5), 445– 461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(01)00101-5 Carbone-Lopez, K. (2013). Across racial/ethnic boundaries: Investigating intimate violence within a national sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512448850

Carbone-Lopez, K., & Miller, J. (2012). Precocious role entry as a mediating factor in women’s methamphetamine use: Implications for life-course and pathways research. Criminology, 50(1), 187– 220. Carbone-Lopez, K., Rennison, C. M., & Macmillan, R. (2012). The transcendence of violence across relationships: New methods for understanding men’s and women’s experiences of intimate partner violence across the life course. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(2), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-0119143-9 Carbone-Lopez, K., Slocum, L. A., & Kruttschnitt, C. (2016). “Police wouldn’t give you no help”: Female offenders on reporting sexual assault to police. Violence Against Women, 22(3), 366–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215602345 Cardyn, L. (2002). Sexualized racism/gendered violence: Outraging the body politic in the Reconstruction South. Michigan Law Review, 100(4), 675–867. https://doi.org/10.2307/1290425 Cares, A. C., & Cusick, G. R. (2012). Risks and opportunities of faith and culture: The case of abused Jewish women. Journal of Family Violence, 27(5), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-0129435-3 Carlan, P. E., & McMullan, E. C. (2009). A contemporary snapshot of policewomen attitudes. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(1), 60–79. Carlen, P. (1983). Women’s imprisonment: A study in social control. London, UK: Routledge & K. Paul. Carlen, P., & Tchaikovsky, C. (1985). Women in prison. In P. Carlen, J. Hicks, J. O’Dwyer, D. Christina, & C. Tchaikovsky (Eds.), Criminal women (pp. 182–186). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Carlisle-Frank, P., Frank, J. M., & Nielsen, L. (2004). Selective battering of the family pet. Anthrozoös, 17(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991864 Carlson, J. R., Anson, R. H., & Thomas, G. (2003). Correctional officer burnout and stress: Does gender matter? The Prison Journal, 83(3), 277–288. Carmen, F. H., Russo, N. F., & Miller, J. B. (1981). Inequality and women’s mental health: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 138(10), 1319–1330. Carr, J. L., & VanDeusen, K. M. (2004). Risk factors for male sexual aggression on college campuses. Journal of Family Violence, 19(5), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOFV.0000042078.55308.4d Carr, N. T., & Hanks, R. S. (2012). If “60 is the new 40,” is 35 the new 15? Late onset crime and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 33(5), 393–411. Carrington, K., & Hogg, R. (2017). Deconstructing criminology’s origin stories. Asian Journal of Criminology, 12(3), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-017-9248-7 Carter, B. (1973). Reform school families. Society, 11(1), 36–43. Casey, R. C., & Bentley, K. J. (2019). Psychotropic medication experiences of incarcerated women: A qualitative inquiry into conundrums of access and identity. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1389331 Cassidy, M., & Gibbs, C. (2019). Examining sentencing patterns and outcomes for white-collar and property crime offenders. Victims &

Offenders, 14(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1547996 Catalano, S. M. (2011). Criminal victimization, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Cate, R. M., Henton, J. M., Koval, J., Christopher, F. S., & Lloyd, S. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social psychological perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 3(1), 79–90. Cattaneo, L. B., Bell, M. E., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (2007). Intimate partner violence victims’ accuracy in assessing their risk of re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 429–440. Cattaneo, L. B., Cho, S., & Botuck, S. (2011). Describing intimate partner stalking over time: An effort to inform victim-centered service provision. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(17), 3428– 3454. Cattaneo, L. B., Dunn, J. L., & Chapman, A. R. (2013). The Court Impact Scale: A tool for evaluating IPV victims’ experience in court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(5), 1088–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512459383 Cauffman, E. (2008). Understanding the female offender. Future of Children, 18(2), 119–142. Cavanaugh, C. E., Messing, J. T., Amanor-Boadu, Y., O’Sullivan, C. S., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2014). Intimate partner sexual violence: A comparison of foreign- versus US-born physically abused Latinas. Journal of Urban Health, 91(1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-013-9817-8 Celinska, K., & Siegel, J. A. (2010). Mothers in trouble: Coping with actual or pending separation from children due to incarceration.

The Prison Journal, 90(4), 447–474. Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1979). A comparative analysis of male and female delinquency. Sociological Quarterly, 20(1), 131–145. Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25(2), 295–321. Cernkovich, S. A., Lanctôt, N., & Giordano, P. C. (2008). Predicting adolescent and adult antisocial behavior among adjudicated delinquent females. Crime & Delinquency, 54(1), 3–33. Chacón, J. M. (2010, May). Tensions and trade-offs: Protecting trafficking victims in the era of immigration enforcement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158(6), 1609–1653. Chadhuri, M., & Daly, K. (1992). Do restraining orders help? In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic violence: The changing criminal justice response (pp. 227–252). Auburn House. Chaiyavej, S., & Morash, M. (2009). Reasons for policewomen’s assertive and passive reactions to sexual harassment. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611108327309 Chamallas, M. (1999). Introduction to feminist legal theory. Aspen Law & Business. Chang, J. C., Martin, S. L., Moracco, K. E., Dulli, L., Scandlin, D., Loucks-Sorrel, M. B., Turner, T., Starsoneck, L., Dorian, P. N., & Bou-Saada, I. (2003). Helping women with disabilities and domestic violence: Strategies, limitations, and challenges of domestic violence programs and services. Journal of Women’s

Health, 12(7), 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1089/154099903322404348 Chantler, K. (2012). Recognition of and intervention in forced marriage as a form of violence and abuse. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012448121 Chapman, J. R. (1990). Violence against women as a violation of human rights. Social Justice, 17(2), 54–70. Chapman, J. R., Minor, E. K., Rieker, P., Mills, T. L., & Bottom, M. (1983). Women employed in corrections. Center for Women Policy Studies, National Institute of Justice. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED228540.pdf Chappell, A. T., & Maggard, S. R. (2007). Applying Black’s theory of law to crack and cocaine dispositions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x06293601 Chapple, C. L., McQuillan, J. A., & Berdahl, T. A. (2005). Gender, social bonds, and delinquency: A comparison of boys’ and girls’ models. Social Science Research, 34(2), 357–383. Charette, Y., & Papachristos, A. V. (2017). The network dynamics of co-offending careers. Social Networks, 51, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.12.005 Charmaraman, L., Jones, A. E., Stein, N., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Is it bullying or sexual harassment? Knowledge, attitudes, and professional development experiences of middle school staff. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12048

Chatsverykova, I. (2017). Severity and leniency in criminal sentencing in Russia: The effects of gender and family ties. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 41(3), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2016.1228073 Chauhan, P., Burnette, M. L., & Repucci, N. D. (2010). Racial disparities among female juvenile offenders. Court Review, 45(1– 2), 8–13. Chauhan, P., Reppucci, N. D., Burnette, M., & Reiner, S. (2010). Race, neighborhood disadvantage, and antisocial behavior among female juvenile offenders. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(4), 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20377 Chauhan, P., Reppucci, N. D., & Turkheimer, E. N. (2009). Racial differences in the associations of neighborhood disadvantage, exposure to violence, and criminal recidivism among female juvenile offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(4), 531– 552. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.868 Cheeseman, K. A. (2012). Women working in corrections: Where we have been and where we are going. Corrections Today, December/January, 64–65, 67. Cheeseman, K. A., & Downey, R. A. (2012). Talking ‘bout my generation: The effect of “generation” on correctional employee perceptions of work stress and job satisfaction. The Prison Journal, 92(1), 24–44. Chen, E. Y., & Adams, E. B. (2019). “I’ve Risen Up From the Ashes That I Created”: Record Clearance and Gendered Narratives of Self-Reinvention and Reintegration. Feminist Criminology, 14(2), 143–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/155708 Cheng, K. K. (2017). Aggravating and mitigating factors in context: Culture, sentencing, and plea mitigation in Hong Kong. New

Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 506–533. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2017.20.3.506 Cheng, T., Nosova, E., Small, W., Hogg, R. S., Hayashi, K., & DeBeck, K. (2019). A gender-based analysis of nonmedical prescription opioid use among people who use illicit drugs. Addictive Behaviors, 97, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.05.022 Cheon, A., & Regehr, C. (2006). Restorative justice in cases of intimate partner violence: Reviewing the evidence. Victims and Offenders, 1, 369–394. Chesney-Lind, M. (1973). Judicial enforcement of the female sex role. Issues in Criminology, 8(2), 51–69. Chesney-Lind, M. (1981). Judicial paternalism and the female status offender. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Women and crime in America (pp. 354–366). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). Women and crime: The female offender. Signs, 12(1), 78–96. Chesney-Lind, M. (1987). Female offenders. In L. L. Crites & W. L. Hepperle (Eds.), Women, the courts, and equality (pp. 114–140). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Girls and status offenses. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 20, 145–165. Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). Patriarchy, prisons, and jails: A critical look at trends in women’s incarceration. The Prison Journal, 71(1), 51– 67.

Chesney-Lind, M. (2003). Reinventing women’s corrections: Challenges for contemporary feminist criminologists and practitioners. In S. F. Sharp & R. Muraskin (Eds.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 3–16). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chesney-Lind, M., & Belknap, J. (2004). Trends in delinquent girls’ aggression. In M. Putallaz & K. L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls (pp. 203–220). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chesney-Lind, M., & Chagnon, N. (2016). Criminology, gender, and race: A case study of privilege in the academy. Feminist Criminology, 11(4), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116633749 Chesney-Lind, M., & Hagedorn, J. (1999). Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Chesney-Lind, M., & Merlo, A. V. (2015). Global war on girls? Policing girls’ sexuality and criminalizing their victimization. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1/2), 71–82. Chesney-Lind, M., & Morash, M. (2013). Transformative feminist criminology: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology, 21(3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-0139187-2 Chesney-Lind, M., Morash, M., & Stevens, T. (2008). Girls’ troubles, girls’ delinquency, and gender responsive programming: A review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 162– 189. Chesney-Lind, M., & Rodriguez, N. (1983). Women under lock and key: A view from the inside. The Prison Journal, 63(2), 47–65.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (1992). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Cheung, N. W. T., & Cheung, Y. W. (2010). Strain, self-control, and gender differences in delinquency among Chinese adolescents: Extending general strain theory. Sociological Perspectives, 53(3), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2010.53.3.321 Chigwada-Bailey, R. (1997). Black women’s experiences of criminal justice: A discourse on disadvantage. Winchester, UK: Waterside Press. Chilton, R., & Datesman, S. K. (1987). Gender, race, and crime: An analysis of urban arrest trends, 1960-1980. Gender & Society, 1(2), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002003 Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17459125.2007.00089.x Cho, A., & Tasca, M. (2019). Disparities in Women’s Prison Sentences: Exploring the Nexus Between Motherhood, Drug Offense, and Sentence Length. Feminist Criminology, 14(4), 420– 440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118773434 Cho, H., & Wilke, D. J. (2010). Gender differences in the nature of the intimate partner violence and effects of perpetrator arrest on revictimization. Journal of Family Violence, 25(4), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9300-1 Cho, S., & Westley, R. (1999). Critical race coalitions: Key movements that performed the theory. University of California Davis Law Review, 33, 1377–1427.

Cho, S. K. (1997). Converging stereotypes in racialized sexual harassment. In A. K. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism (pp. 203– 220). New York: New York University Press. Choo, K., Jang, J. O., & Choi, K. (2010). Methodological and ethical challenges to conducting human trafficking studies: A case study of Korean trafficking and smuggling for sexual exploitation to the United States. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(1–2), 167–185. Chouinard, V. (2012). Pushing the boundaries of our understanding of disability and violence: Voices from the Global South (Guyana). Disability & Society, 27(6), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.686880 Christensen, R. K., Szmer, J., & Stritch, J. M. (2012). Race and gender bias in three administrative contexts: Impact on work assignments in state supreme courts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 625–648. Christgau, R. (2003). Rock out: Why MTV had to destroy rock and roll in order to save it. New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/anniversary/35th/n_8586/ Christopher, W. (1991). Report of the independent commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. Diane Publishing. Chu, D. C., & Abdulla, M. M. (2014). Self-efficacy Beliefs and Preferred Gender Role in Policing: An Examination of Policewomen’s Perceptions in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Criminology, 54(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu010 Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2012). An empirical investigation of social bonds and juvenile delinquency in Hong Kong. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(4), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-012-9172-z

Church, G. J., & Browning, S. (1990). The view from behind bars. TIME, 136(19), 20–22. Church, W. T., Wharton, T., & Taylor, J. K. (2009). An examination of differential association and social control theory family systems and delinquency. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204008324910 Ciani, A. S. C., & Fontanesi, L. (2012). Mothers who kill their offspring: Testing evolutionary hypothesis in a 110-case Italian sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(6), 519–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.05.001 Cissner, A. B., Labriola, M., & Rempel, M. (2015). Domestic violence courts: A multisite test of whether and how they change offender outcomes. Violence Against Women, 21(9), 1102–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215589231 Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(2), 345–392. Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. (2020). Semelbauer v. Muskegon County. https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php? id=14252 Clark, A. (1987). Women’s silence, men’s violence: Sexual assault in England 1770-1845. Pandora. Clark, D. S. (2012). Legal professions and law firms. In D. S. Clark (Ed.), Comparative law and society (pp. 362–402). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Clark, J., & Boudin, K. (1990). Community of women organize themselves to cope with the AIDS crisis: A case-study from Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. Social Justice, 17(2), 90–109.

Clarke, J. A. (2019). They, them, and theirs. Harvard Law Review, 132(3), 894–991. Clarke, J. G., Hebert, M. R., Rosengard, C., Rose, J. S., DaSilva, K. M., & Stein, M. D. (2006). Reproductive health care and family planning needs among incarcerated women. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 834–839. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.060236 Clay-Warner, J., & Burt, C. H. (2005). Rape reporting after reforms: Have times really changed? Violence Against Women, 11(2), 150– 176. Clay-Warner, J., & McMahon-Howard, J. (2009). Rape reporting: “Classic rape” and the behavior of law. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.6.723 Clemente, F., & Kleiman, M. B. (1976). Fear of crime among aged. Gerontologist, 16(3), 207–210. Clinard, M. B., & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminal behavior systems: A typology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Cobbina, J. E., Miller, J., & Brunson, R. K. (2008). Gender, neighborhood danger, and risk-avoidance strategies among urban African-American youths. Criminology, 46(3), 673–709. Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. Cohen, M. H., Weber, K. M., Lancki, N., Gange, S. J., Plankey, M., Philbin, M. M., … Evans, C. T. (2019). History of incarceration among women with HIV: Impact on prognosis and mortality. Journal of Women’s Health, 28(8), 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7454 Cohn, E. S., Dupuis, E. C., & Brown, T. M. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Do behavior and character affect victim and perpetrator responsibility for acquaintance rape? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), 1513–1535. Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260–268. Coker, A. L., Patel, N. J., Krishnaswami, S., & Schmidt, W. (1998). Childhood forced sex and cervical dysplasia among women prison inmates. Violence Against Women, 4(5), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004005005 Coker, A. L., Sanderson, M., Cantu, E., Huerta, D., & Fadden, M. K. (2008). Frequency and types of partner violence among Mexican American college women. Journal of American College Health, 56(6), 665–673. Cole, J., Logan, T. K., & Shannon, L. (2008). Women’s risk for revictimization by a new abusive partner: For what should we be looking? Violence and Victims, 23(3), 315–330. Collica, K. (2013). Female prisoners, AIDS, and peer programs: How female offenders transform their lives. New York, NY: Springer.

Collica-Cox, K., & Furst, G. (2019). Parenting from a county jail: Parenting from beyond the bars. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 40(7), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2019.1565877 Collier, M., & Daniel, M. (2019). The production of trans illegality: Cisnormativity in the U.S. immigration system. Sociology Compass, 13(4), e12666. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12666 Collins, A. M., Bouffard, L. A., & Wilkes, N. (2019). Predicting recidivism among defendants in an expedited domestic violence court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518822343 Collins, C. F. (1997). The imprisonment of African American women: Causes, conditions, and future implications. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Collins, E. R. (2015). The evidentiary rules of engagement in the war against domestic violence. New York University Law Review, 90(2), 397–459. Collins, L. J. (2020). Sex before the law: Transgender arguments under Title VII and shifting stases of sex. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 16(1), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872116679391 Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Collins, P. M., Jr., Manning, K. L., & Carp, R. A. (2010). Gender, critical mass, and judicial decision making. Law & Policy, 32(2),

260–281. Collins, T. A., Dumas, T. L., & Moyer, L. P. (2017). Intersecting disadvantages: Race, gender, and age discrimination among attorneys. Social Science Quarterly, 98(5), 1642–1658. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12376 Collins, T. A., Dumas, T. L., & Moyer, L. P. (2018). Tipping the scales of justice: Perceptions of unfair treatment in the courtroom. Justice System Journal, 39(4), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2018.1483215 Colomy, P., & Kretzmann, M. (1997). The gendering of social control. In A. McGillivray (Ed.), Governing childhood (pp. 1901–1927). Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth. Colvin, R. (2012). Gay and lesbian cops: Diversity and effective policing. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Colvin, R. (2014). Policing the lesbian and gay community: The perceptions of lesbian and gay police officers. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 183–205). New York, NY: Springer. Comack, E. (1996). Women in trouble: Connecting women’s law violations to their histories of abuse. Halifax, Canada: Fernwood. Comartin, E. B., Burgess-Proctor, A., Kubiak, S., & Kernsmith, P. (2018). Factors related to co-offending and coerced offending among female sex offenders: The role of childhood and adult trauma histories. Violence and Victims, 33(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-16-00073 Compton-Wallace, V. (2003). Eating the ashes: Seeking rehabilitation within the US penal system. New York, NY: Algora.

Connell, N. M., Jennings, W. G., Barbieri, N., & Gonzalez, J. M. R. (2015). Arrest as a way out: Understanding the needs of women sex trafficking victims identified by law enforcement. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2015.1007614 Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639 Connett, D. (2019). Highway of Tears: Why indigenous people disappear in the US and Canada. INews. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/highway-tears-canada-nativeunited-states-disappearances-violence-503039 Conover-Williams, M. (2014). The queer delinquent: Impacts of risk and protective factors on sexual minority juvenile offending in the U.S. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 449–472). New York, NY: Springer. Contreras, R. (2013). The stickup kids: Race, drugs, violence, and the American dream. Oakland: University of California Press. Conway, A., & Bogdan, C. (1977). Sexual delinquency: The persistence of a double standard. Crime & Delinquency, 23(2), 131–135. Cook, B. B. (1978). Women judges: The end of tokenism. In W. L. Hepperle & L. L. Crites (Eds.), Women in the Courts (pp. 84–105). National Center for State Courts. Cook, K. J. (2016). Has criminology awakened from its “androcentric slumber”? Feminist Criminology, 11(4), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116660437

Cook, N. K., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2018). I said no: The impact of voicing non-consent on women’s perceptions of and responses to rape. Violence Against Women, 24(5), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217708059 Cook, P. J. (2009). Explaining the imprisonment epidemic. Criminology and Public Policy, 8(1), 25–27. Cook, S. L., Smith, S. G., Tusher, C. P., & Raiford, J. (2005). Selfreports of traumatic events in a random sample of incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(1/2), 107–126. Cooper, S. (1993). The evolution of the federal women’s prison. In E. Adelberg & C. Currie (Eds.), In conflict with the law (pp. 22–49). Vancouver, Canada: Press Gang Publishers. Cooper-Sadlo, S., Mancini, M. A., Meyer, D. D., & Chou, J. L. (2019). Mothers talk back: Exploring the experiences of formerly incarcerated mothers. Contemporary Family Therapy, 41(1), 92– 101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-018-9473-y Corcoran, K. J., & Thomas, L. R. (1991). The influence of observed alcohol consumption on perceptions of initiation of sexual activity in a college dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(6), 500–507. Cordner, G., & Cordner, A. (2011). Stuck on a plateau? Obstacles to recruitment, selection, and retention of women police. Police Quarterly, 14(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611111413990 Corliss, H. L., Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., Greenland, S., & Seeman, T. E. (2009). Age of minority sexual orientation development and risk of childhood maltreatment and suicide attempts in women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(4), 511–521.

Cornwell, E. Y., & Hans, V. P. (2011). Representation through participation: A multilevel analysis of jury deliberations. Law & Society Review, 45(3), 667–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405893.2011.00447.x Corsianos, M. (2004). “Women” detectives and perceptions of “oppressive” experiences: Exploring experiential essentialism and phenomenology. Critical Criminology, 12(1), 67–85. Corsianos, M. (2009). Policing and gendered justice. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Corsianos, M. (2012). The complexities of police corruption: Gender, identity, and misconduct. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Corsilles, A. (1994). No-drop policies in the prosecution of domestic violence cases: Guarantee to action or dangerous solution? Fordham Law Review, 63(3), 853–881. Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 27(2), 235–270. Cortina, L. M., Swan, S. C., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 419–441. Costello, J., & Durfee, A. (2019). Survivor-defined advocacy in the civil protection order process. Feminist Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085119891250 Coston, C. T. M. (1992). The influence of race in urban homeless females’ fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 9(4), 721–730.

Covington, S. S. (2007). Women and the criminal justice system. Women’s Health Issues, 17(4), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2007.05.004 Covington, S. S. (2008). Helping Women Recover: A program for treating addiction (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Covington, S. S. (2013). Beyond violence: A prevention program for criminal justice-involved women participant workbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Covington, S. S., & Bloom, B. E. (2006). Gender responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v29n03_02 Cowie, J., Cowie, V. A., & Slater, E. (1968). Delinquency in girls. London, UK: Heinemann Educational. Coyne, J. A., & Berry, A. (2000). Rape as an adaptation: Is this contentious hypothesis advocacy, not science? [Review of the book A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion, by R. Thornhill & C. T. Palmer]. Nature, 404(6774), 121–122. Crafts, H., & Gates, H. L. (2002). The bondwoman’s narrative. New York, NY: Warner Books. Craig, S. C. (2009). A historical review of mother and child programs for incarcerated women. The Prison Journal, 89(Suppl. 1), 35S– 53S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885508329768 Craven, D. (1996). Female victims of violent crime. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice.

Crawford, C. C., & Johnston, M. A. (1999). An evolutionary model of courtship and mating as social exchange: Implications for rape law reform. Jurimetrics, 39(2), 181–200. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 14, 139–167. Crenshaw, K. W. (2002). The first decade: Critical reflections, or “a foot in the closing door.” UCLA Law Review, 49(5), 1343–1372. Crenshaw, K. W. (2012). From private violence to mass incarceration: Thinking intersectionally about women, race, and social control symposium: Overpoliced and underprotected: Women, race, and criminalization: I. Establishing the framework. UCLA Law Review, 6, 1418–1473. Cressey, D. R. (1964). Delinquency, crime, and differential association. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Crew, R. K. (1991). Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or patriarchy? Justice Quarterly, 8(1), 59–83. Crites, L. L. (Ed.). (1976). The female offender. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Cromer, L. D., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). Child sexual abuse myths: Attitudes, beliefs, and individual differences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(6), 618–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2010.522493 Cross, T. P., Alderden, M., Wagner, A., Sampson, L., Peters, B., & Lounsbury, K. (2017). Biological evidence in adult and adolescent sexual assault cases: Timing and relationship to arrest. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 35(7–8), 1828–1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517704229 Cross, T. P., & Schmitt, T. (2019). Forensic medical results and law enforcement actions following sexual assault: A comparison of child, adolescent and adult cases. Child Abuse & Neglect, 93, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.014 Crosset, T. W., Ptacek, J., McDonald, M. A., & Benedict, J. R. (1996). Male student-athletes and violence against women: A survey of campus judicial affairs offices. Violence Against Women, 2(2), 163–179. Crossley, A. D. (2017). Finding feminism: Millennial activists and the unfinished gender revolution. New York: New York University Press. Crossman, K. A., Hardesty, J. L., & Raffaelli, M. (2016). “He could scare me without laying a hand on me”: Mothers’ experiences of nonviolent coercive control during marriage and after separation. Violence Against Women, 22(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215604744 Crouch, J. L., Thomsen, C. J., Milner, J. S., Stander, V. A., & Merrill, L. L. (2009). Heterosexual intimate partner violence among Navy personnel: Gender differences in incidence and consequences. Military Psychology, 21(Suppl. 2), S1–S15. Crow, M. S., & Kunselman, J. C. (2009). Sentencing female drug offenders: Reexamining racial and ethnic disparities. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(3), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450903001511 Crowley, U., & Kitchin, R. (2008). Producing “decent girls”: Governmentality and the moral geographies of sexual conduct in Ireland (1922-1937). Gender, Place, and Culture, 15(4), 355–372.

Culley, R. (2012). “The judge didn’t sentence me to be raped”: Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections: A 15-year battle against the sexual abuse of women inmates in Michigan. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.687955 Cunningham, K. (2001). Father time: Flexible work arrangements and the law firm’s failure of the family. Stanford Law Review, 53(4), 967–1008. Curran, D. A. (1983). Judicial discretion and defendant’s sex. Criminology, 21(1), 41–58. Curran, D. J. (1984). The myth of the “new” female delinquent. Crime & Delinquency, 30(3), 386–399. Custers, K., & McNallie, J. (2017). The relationship between television sports exposure and rape myth acceptance: The mediating role of sexism and sexual objectification of women. Violence Against Women, 23(7), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216651340 Custers, K., & Van den Bulck, J. (2013). The cultivation of fear of sexual violence in women: Processes and moderators of the relationship between television and fear. Communication Research, 40(1), 96–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212440444 Cutler, K. A. (2016). Beauty and care versus fun and flair: Applying a gendered theory of offending to college students’ NMPDU. Deviant Behavior, 37(10), 1132–1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1169762 Daane, D. M. (2003). Pregnant prisoners: Health, security, and special needs issues. In S. F. Sharp (Ed.), The incarcerated

woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 61– 72). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dados, N., & Connell, R. (2012). The global south. Contexts, 11(1), 12–13. Dahl, T. S. (1986). Taking women as a starting point: Building women’s law. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 14(3– 4), 239–247. Daly, K. (1989a). Gender and varieties of white-collar crime. Criminology, 27(4), 769–793. Daly, K. (1989b). Neither conflict nor labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime & Delinquency, 35(1), 136–168. Daly, K. (1989c). Rethinking gender paternalism: Gender, workfamily relations, and sentencing. Gender & Society, 3(1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124389003001002 Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2(1), 11–52. Daly, K. (1994, July). [Review of the book Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory, by James W. Messerschmidt]. American Journal of Sociology, 100(1), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1086/230537 Daly, K., & Bordt, R. L. (1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 141– 175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500092601

Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497–538. Dancey, A., Nassimizadeh, A., & Levick, P. (2012). Capsular contracture – What are the risk factors? A 14 year series of 1400 consecutive augmentations. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 65(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.09.011 Danner, M. J. E. (1991). Socialist feminism. In B. D. McLean & D. Milovanovic (Eds.), New directions in critical criminology (pp. 51– 54). Vancouver, Canada: Collective Press. Danner, M. J. E., & Carmody, D. C. (2001). Missing gender in cases of infamous school violence: Investigating research and media explanations. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 87–114. Dartnall, E., & Jewkes, R. (2013). Sexual violence against women: The scope of the problem. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.08.002 Dasgupta, S. D. (2001). Towards an understanding of women’s use of non-lethal violence in intimate heterosexual relationships. VAWnet. National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. https://vawnet.org/material/towards-understandingwomens-use-non-lethal-violence-intimate-heterosexualrelationships Dasgupta, S. D. (2004). Women’s realities: Defining violence against women by immigration, race, and class. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 361–373). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dasgupta, S. D., & Eng, P. (2003). Safety & justice for all: Examining the relationship between the women’s anti-violence movement and the criminal legal system. Ms. Foundation for Women. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Ms_SafetyJusticeForAll_2003.pdf Datesman, S. K., & Aickin, M. (1984). Offense specialization and escalation among status offenders. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75(4), 1246–1275. Datesman, S. K., & Scarpitti, F. R. (1977). Unequal protection for males and females in the juvenile court. In T. N. Ferdinand (Ed.), Juvenile delinquency. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Datesman, S. K., & Scarpitti, F. R. (1980). Women, crime, and justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Datesman, S. K., Scarpitti, F. R., & Stephenson, R. M. (1975). Female delinquency: An application of self and opportunity theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12(2), 107–123. Davidson, M. L., & Rosky, J. W. (2015). Dangerousness or diminished capacity? Exploring the association of gender and mental illness with violent offense sentence length. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9267-1 Davies, J. M., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania, D. (1998). Safety planning with battered women: Complex lives/difficult choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Davis, A. Y. (1981). Women, race, & class. New York, NY: Random House.

Davis, D. (1994). The harm that has no name: Street harassment, embodiment, and African American women. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 4(2), 133–178. Davis, K. B. (1913). A plan of rational treatment for women offenders. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 4(3), 402–408. Davis, M., Banks, S. M., Fisher, W. H., Gershenson, B., & Grudzinskas, A. J. (2007). Arrests of adolescent clients of a public mental health system during adolescence and young adulthood. Psychiatric Services, 58(11), 1454–1460. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2007.58.11.1454 Deaux, K., & Taynor, J. (1973). Evaluation of male and female ability: Bias works two ways. Psychological Reports, 32(1), 261–262. Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., & Dhingra, K. (2015). Victim, perpetrator, and offense characteristics in filicide and filicide– suicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.011 Decker, M. R., Crago, A.-L., Chu, S. K. H., Sherman, S. G., Seshu, M. S., Buthelezi, K., Dhaliwal, M., & Beyrer, C. (2015). Human rights violations against sex workers: Burden and effect on HIV. The Lancet, 385(9963), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(14)60800-X Decker, S., Wright, R., Redfern, A., & Smith, D. (1993). A woman’s place is in the home: Females and residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829300091741 De Coster, S. (2012). Mothers’ work and family roles, gender ideologies, distress, and parenting. Sociological Quarterly, 53(4), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01253.x

De Coster, S., & Heimer, K. (2001). The relationship between law violation and depression: An interactionist analysis. Criminology, 39(4), 799–836. De Coster, S., & Lutz, J. (2018). Reconsidering labels and primary deviance: False appraisals, reflected appraisals, and delinquency onset. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(5), 609– 648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818771437 DeCrow, K. (1975). Sexist justice. New York, NY: Vintage Press. Deegan, M. J. (2003). Katharine Bement Davis (1860-1935): Her theory and praxis of feminist pragmatism in criminology. Women & Criminal Justice, 14(2–3), 15–40. Deer, S. (2015). The beginning and end of rape: Confronting sexual violence in Native America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Deer, S. (2018). Native people and violent crime: Gendered violence and tribal jurisdiction. Du Bois Review, 15(1), 89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X18000012 DeFleur, L. B. (1975). Biasing influences on drug arrest records: Implications for deviance research. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 88–103. DeFour, D. C. (1990). The interface of racism and sexism on college campuses. In M. A. Pauludi (Ed.), Sexual harassment on campus (pp. 45–52). Albany: State University of New York Press. DeGroot, A. S., & Maddow, R. (2006). HIV/AIDS infection among incarcerated women. In R. L. Braithwaite, K. J. Arriola, & C. Newkirk (Eds.), Health issues among incarcerated women (pp. 237–247). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

de Guzman, M. C., & Frank, J. (2004). Policewomen and their problems: The Philippine context. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27(3), 396–412. de Haas, S., Timmerman, G., & Höing, M. (2009). Sexual harassment and health among male and female police officers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017046 Dehan, N., & Levi, Z. (2009). Spiritual abuse: An additional dimension of abuse experienced by abused Haredi (ultraorthodox) Jewish wives. Violence Against Women, 15(11), 1294–1310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209347619 DeHart, D. D. (2008). Pathways to prison: Impact of victimization in the lives of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14(12), 1362–1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208327018 DeHart, D. D., Lynch, S., Belknap, J., Dass-Brailsford, P., & Green, B. (2014). Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313494357 Deitch, C. (1993). Gender, race, and class politics and the inclusion of women in Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act. Gender & Society, 7(2), 183–203. Dejong, C. (2004). Gender differences in officer attitude and behavior. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(3–4), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v15n03_01 DeJong, C., Pizarro, J. M., & McGarrell, E. F. (2011). Can situational and structural factors differentiate between intimate partner and “other” homicide? Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 365–376.

DeKeseredy, W. S. (1996). The left-realists perspective on race, class, and gender. In Race, gender, and class in criminology (pp. 46–72). Garland. DeKeseredy, W., & Kelly, K. (1993). The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships. The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 18(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/3341255 del Barco, M. (2008, April). L.A. SWAT unit on verge of accepting first woman. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php? storyId=90015810 De León, F. J. (2010). Spanish legislation against trafficking in human beings: Punitive excess and poor victims assistance. Crime, Law and Social Change, 54(5), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-010-9263-4 DeLeon-Granados, W., Wells, W., & Binsbacher, R. (2006). Arresting developments—Trends in female arrests for domestic violence and proposed explanations. Violence Against Women, 12(4), 355– 371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206287315 Delgado, R. (1994). Rodrigo’s eighth chronicle: Black crime, white fears—On the social construction of threat. Virginia Law Review, 80(2), 503. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: New York University Press. De Li, S. (1999). Social control, delinquency, and youth status achievement: A developmental approach. Sociological Perspectives, 42(2), 305–324.

De Li, S. (2004). The impacts of self-control and social bonds on juvenile delinquency in a national sample of midadolescents. Deviant Behavior, 25, 351–374. De Li, S., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2003). The gendered effects of adult social bonds on the criminal activities of probationers. Criminal Justice Review, 28(2), 278–298. Delisi, M. (2002). Not just a boy’s club. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(4), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v13n04_03 Del Toro, J., Lloyd, T., Buchanan, K. S., Robins, S. J., Bencharit, L. Z., Smiedt, M. G., … Goff, P. A. (2019). The criminogenic and psychological effects of police stops on adolescent black and Latino boys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17), 8261–8268. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808976116 Dembo, R., Williams, L., Wothke, W., J. Schmeidler, and, & Brown, C. H. (1992). The role of family factors, physical abuse, and sexual victimization experiences in high-risk youths’ alcohol and other drug use and delinquency: A longitudinal model. Violence and Victims, 7(3), 245–266. Demir, O. O., & Finckenauer, J. O. (2010). Victims of sex trafficking in Turkey: Characteristics, motivations, and dynamics. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(1–2), 57–88. Dengler, C., & Seebacher, L. M. (2019). What about the global south? Towards a feminist decolonial degrowth approach. Ecological Economics, 157, 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.11.019 Denike, M. A. (2002). Myths of woman and the rights of man: The politics of credibility in Canadian rape law. In J. F. Hodgson & D. S. Kelley (Eds.), Sexual violence: Policies, practices, and challenges

in the United States and Canada (pp. 101–118). Westport, CT: Praeger. DePrince, A. P., Belknap, J., Labus, J. S., Buckingham, S. E., & Gover, A. R. (2012). The impact of victim-focused outreach on criminal legal system outcomes following police-reported intimate partner abuse. Violence Against Women, 18(8), 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212456523 DePrince, A. P., Buckingham, S. E., & Belknap, J. (2014). The geography of intimate partner abuse experiences and clinical responses. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(3), 258–271. DePrince, A. P., Dmitrieva, J., Gagnon, K. L., & Srinivas, T. (2017). Women’s experiences of social reactions from informal and formal supports: Using a modified administration of the Social Reactions Questionnaire. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 0886260517742149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517742149 Derks, B., Van Laar, C., Ellemers, N., & de Groot, K. (2011). Genderbias primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1243–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417258 Deschenes, E. P., & Esbensen, F.-A. (1999). Violence and gangs: Gender differences in perceptions and behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(1), 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007552105190 Dewey, S., Zare, B., Connolly, C., Epler, R., & Bratton, R. (2019). Outlaw women: Prison, rural violence, and poverty in the American West. New York: New York University Press. Dial, K. C., Downey, R. A., & Goodlin, W. E. (2010). The job in the joint: The impact of generation and gender on work stress in

prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.033 Díaz-Cotto, J. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, and the state: Latina and Latino prison politics. Albany: State University of New York Press. Diaz-Cotto, J. (2000). The criminal justice system and its impact on Latinas(os) in the United States. Justice Professional, 13(1), 49– 67. Dichter, M. E. (2013). “They arrested me—and I was the victim”: Women’s experiences with getting arrested in the context of domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.759068 Dichter, M. E., Cerulli, C., Kothari, C. L., Barg, F. K., & Rhodes, K. V. (2011). Engaging with criminal prosecution: The victim’s perspective. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2011.536053 Dick, P., & Cassell, C. (2004). The position of policewomen: A discourse analytic study. Work, Employment and Society, 18(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017004040762 Dickson, S. (2016). Building Rainbow communities free of partner and sexual violence. Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura. http://www.kahukura.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/BuildingRainbow-Communities-Free-of-Partner-and-Sexual-Violence2016.pdf Dierenfeldt, R., Shadwick, J. T., & Kwak, H. (2019). Examining gender- and drug-specific arrest counts: A partial test of Agnew’s general strain theory. Deviant Behavior, 1–16.

di Gennaro, K., & Ritschel, C. (2019). Blurred lines: The relationship between catcalls and compliments. Women’s Studies International Forum, 75, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.102239 Di Leone, B. A. L., Vogt, D., Gradus, J. L., Street, A. E., Giasson, H. L., & Resick, P. A. (2013). Predictors of mental health care use among male and female veterans deployed in support of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Psychological Services, 10(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032088 Dilg, J. (2012). From coverture to Supreme Court justice: Women lawyers and judges in Oregon history. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 113(3), 360–381. Dimond, J. P., Fiesler, C., & Bruckman, A. S. (2011). Domestic violence and information communication technologies. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.006 Dinno, A. (2017). Homicide rates of transgender individuals in the United States: 2010–2014. American Journal of Public Health, 107(9), 1441–1447. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. Free Press. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1998). Rethinking violence against women. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2011). What were they thinking? Men who murder an intimate partner. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 111–134. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2015). When men murder women. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (1981). Community response to violence against wives: Charivari, abstract justice and patriarchy. Social Problems, 28(5), 563–581. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Gutteridge, S. (1986). The imprisonment of women. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71–91. Dobrin, A., Smith, J. J., Peck, J. H., & Mascara, K. (2016). Perceptions of gender bias in the promotional process of a detention staff. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(3), 522– 538. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250(4988), 1678–1683. Dodge, L. M. (2002). Whores and thieves of the worst kind: A study of women, crime, and prisons, 1835-2000. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Dodge, M. (2009). Women and white-collar crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dodge, M. (2013). Where are all the women and white-collar crime? In C. M. Renzetti, S. L. Miller, & A. R. Gover (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of crime and gender studies (pp. 197–212). New York, NY: Routledge. Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. (2001a). African-American policewomen: An exploration of professional relationships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24(4), 550–562.

Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. (2001b). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications of reintegration. The Prison Journal, 81(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885501081001004 Dodge, M., Valcore, L., & Gomez, F. (2011). Women on SWAT teams: Separate but equal? Policing-an International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(4), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180298 Dodge, M., Valcore, L., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Maintaining separate spheres in policing: Women on SWAT teams. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(3), 218–238. Doe, J., & Belknap, J. (2019). Colorado Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board annual report 2019. https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2019/12/2019-Colorado-DomesticViolence-Fatality-Review-Board-Annual-Report-1.pdf Doerner, J. K. (2012). Gender disparities in sentencing departures: An examination of U.S. federal courts. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 176–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.687953 Doerner, J. K., & Demuth, S. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902926197 Doherty, E. E., & Ensminger, M. E. (2013). Marriage and offending among a cohort of disadvantaged African Americans. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 104–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811423106 Dolliver, M. J. (2019). The impact of gender identity on female offending: A quantitative assessment using the BSRI. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(2), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1367753

Dolon, R., Hendricks, J., & Meagher, M. S. (1986). Police practices and attitudes toward domestic violence. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14(3), 187–192. Dolon, R., Hendricks, J., & Meagher, M. S. (1986). Police practices and attitudes toward domestic violence. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14(3), 187–192. Donnelly, E. A., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). The downstream effects of bail and pretrial detention on racial disparities in incarceration. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108(4), 775–813. Donovan, R., & Williams, M. (2002). Living at the intersection: The effects of racism and sexism on black rape survivors. Women & Therapy, 25(3–4), 95–105. Dornfeld, M., & Kruttschnitt, C. (1992). Do the stereotypes fit? Mapping gender-specific outcomes and risk factors. Criminology, 30(3), 397–419. Dorr, L. L. (2004). White women, rape, and the power of race in Virginia, 1900-1960. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Douglas, H., & Fell, E. (forthcoming). Malicious reports of child maltreatment as coercive control: Mothers and domestic and family violence. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00128-1 Douglas, R. M. (1999). Feminist freikorps: The British voluntary women police, 1914-1940. Westport, CT: Praeger. Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(1), 31–47.

Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Hulme, S., Manning, M., & Wong, G. (2018). Protection orders for domestic violence: A systematic review. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 551, 1–19. Drachman, V. G. (1989). “My ‘partner’ in law and life”: Marriage in the lives of women lawyers in late 19th- and early 20th-century America. Law & Social Inquiry, 14(2), 221–250. Drakulich, K. M., & Rose, K. (2013). Being male or living with a female: Fear for partners by sex and sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(9), 1765–1797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512469109 Du Bois, W. E. B. (1899). The Philadelphia Negro: A social study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Du Mont, J., & Myhr, T. L. (2000). So few convictions: The role of client-related characteristics in the legal processing of sexual assaults. Violence Against Women, 6(10), 1109–1136. Dugan, N. (2020). #TimesUp on individual litigation reform: Combatting sexual harassment through employee- driven action and private regulation. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 53, 247–281. DuMont, J., Miller, K.-L., & Myhr, T. L. (2003). The role of “real rape” and “real victim” stereotypes in the police reporting practices of sexually assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 9(4), 466– 486. Dunford, F. W. (1992). The measurement of recidivism in cases of spouse assault. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83(1), 120–136.

Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. Criminology, 28(2), 183–206. Duntley, J. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Darwinian foundations of crime and law. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(5), 373–382. Durfee, A. (2011). “I’m not a victim, she’s an abuser”: Masculinity, victimization, and protection orders. Gender & Society, 25(3), 316– 334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211404889 Durfee, A. (2012). Situational ambiguity and gendered patterns of arrest for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212437017 Durfee, A., & Goodmark, L. (2019). Is there a protection order to prison pipeline? Gendered dimensions of cross-petitions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2019.1685044 Durham, C. (1998). Thoughtful and worldly women: Women judges and the law. In S. Shetreet (Ed.), Women in law (pp. 217–236). Kluwer Law International. Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. L. (1981). Traumatic bonding: The development of emotional attachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent abuse. Victimology: An International Journal, 6(1–4), 139–155. Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11–12), 743–756.

Eastwood, M. (1975). Feminism and the law. In J. E. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (pp. 325–334). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Eaton, M. (1986). Justice for women? Family, court and social control. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Edleson, J. L., Eisikovits, Z. C., Guttmann, E., & Selaamit, M. (1991). Cognitive and interpersonal factors in woman abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 6(2), 167–182. Edwards, A. (1987). Male violence in feminist theory. In J. Hanmer & M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence, and social control (pp. 13– 29). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International. Edwards, A., & Heenan, M. (1994). Rape trials in Victoria: Gender, socio-cultural factors and justice. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 27(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/000486589402700301 Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., Barry, J. E., Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cohn, E. S., Walsh, W. A., & Ward, S. K. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexualminority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0119943-2 Edwards, M. C. (2018). Comments on “Long-term safety of textured and smooth breast implants” and a plea to abandon the use of the

MAUDE database. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 38(3), NP64–NP65. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx219 Edwards, S. S. M. (1984). Women on trial: A study of the female suspect, defendant, and offender in the criminal law and criminal justice system. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Egerman, M. (2008). Roe v. Crawford: Do inmates have an Eighth Amendment right to elective abortions? Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 31, 423–445. Ehrhart, J. K., & Sandler, B. R. (1985). Campus gang rape: Party games? Project on the Status and Education of Women Association of American Colleges. Ehrmann, S., Hyland, N., & Puzzanchera, C. (2019). Girls in the juvenile justice system (NCJ Report 251486). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/251486.pdf Eigenberg, H. M. (1990). The National Crime Survey and rape: The case of the missing question. Justice Quarterly, 7, 655–672. Eigenberg, H. M., Scarborough, K. E., & Kappeler, V. E. (1996). Contributory factors affecting arrest in domestic and non-domestic assaults. American Journal of Police, 15(4), 27–54. Eigenberg, H. M., & Whalley, E. (2015). Gender and publication patterns: Female authorship is increasing, but is there gender parity? Women & Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1023882 Eitle, D. (2002). Exploring a source of deviance-producing strain for females: Perceived discrimination and general strain theory.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(5), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(02)00146-0 Eitle, D., Niedrist, F., & Eitle, T. M. (2014). Gender, race, and delinquent behavior: An extension of power-control theory to American Indian adolescents. Deviant Behavior, 35(12), 1023– 1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.903756 Eitle, T. M., & Eitle, D. (2015). Explaining the association between gender and substance use among American Indian adolescents: An application of power-control theory. Sociological Perspectives, 58(4), 686–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121415570394 Elder, G. H. (1985). Perspectives in the life course. In G. H. Elder (Ed.), Life coure dynamics (pp. 23–49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ellis, L. (1993). Rape as a biosocial phenomenon. In G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman, J. R. Graham, & M. S. Zaragoza (Eds.), Sexual aggression: Issues in etiology, assessment, and treatment (pp. 17–41). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Elizabeth, V. (2019). ‘It’s an invisible wound’: The disenfranchised grief of post-separation mothers who lose care time. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 41(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1554788 Ellis, D. (1987). Post-separation woman abuse: The contribution of lawyers as “barracudas,” “advocates,” and “counsellors.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 10(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(87)90022-7 Ellis, D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (1989). Marital status and woman abuse. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 19(2), 67– 87.

Ellis, L. (2004). Sex, status, and criminality: A theoretical nexus. Social Biology, 51(3–4), 144–160. Ellis, L., Das, S., & Buker, H. (2008). Androgen-promoted physiological traits and criminality: A test of the evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 701–711. Ellis, L., & Walsh, A. (1997). Gene-based evolutionary theories in criminology. Criminology, 35(2), 229–276. Englebrecht, C. M., & Reyns, B. W. (2011). Gender differences in acknowledgment of stalking victimization: Results from the NCVS Stalking Supplement. Violence and Victims, 26(5), 560–579. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.5.560 Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a women’s prison. Albany: State University of New York Press. Eppler, A. (1986). Battered women and the equal protection clause: Will the Constitution help them when the police won’t? Yale Law Journal, 95(4), 788–809. Epstein, C. F. (1983). Women in law. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Epstein, C. F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Epstein, C. F. (1998). Reaching for the top: “The glass ceiling” and women in the law. In S. Shetreet (Ed.), Women in law (pp. 105– 130). Kluwer Law International. Erez, E. (1986). Intimacy, violence, and the police. Human Relations, 39(3), 265–281.

Erez, E. (1989). Gender, rehabilitation, and probation decisions. Criminology, 27(2), 307–327. Erez, E. (1992). Dangerous men, evil women: Gender and parole decisionmaking. Justice Quarterly, 9(1), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829200091271 Erez, E., & Bach, S. (2003). Immigration, domestic violence, and the military: The case of “military brides.” Violence Against Women, 9(9), 1093–1117. Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 251–268. Erez, E., & Berko, A. (2010). Pathways of Arab/Palestinian women in Israel to crime and imprisonment: An intersectional approach. Feminist Criminology, 5(2), 156–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110367742 Erickson, P. G., Butters, J., McGillicuddy, P., & Hallgren, A. (2000). Crack and prostitution: Gender, myths, and experiences. Journal of Drug Issues, 30(4), 767–788. Ericson, R. D., & Eckberg, D. A. (2016). Racial disparity in juvenile diversion: The impact of focal concerns and organizational coupling. Race and Justice, 6(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368715594848 Erikson, K. (1962). Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 9(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1962.9.4.03a00020 Esbensen, F.-A., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology, 31(4), 565–

589. Esbensen, F.-A., & Winfree, L. T. (1998). Race and gender differences between gang and nongang youths: Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093861 Eskenazi, G. (1990, June 30). The male athlete and sexual assault. The New York Times, p. 27. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/03/sports/the-male-athlete-andsexual-assault.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Esper, L. H., & Furtado, E. F. (2019). Stressful life events and alcohol consumption in pregnant women: A cross-sectional survey. Midwifery, 71, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.12.019 Estrada, F., & Nilsson, A. (2012). Does it cost more to be a female offender? A life-course study of childhood circumstances, crime, drug abuse, and living conditions. Feminist Criminology, 7(3), 196–219. Estrada, J. N., Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2016). A statewide study of gang membership in California secondary schools. Youth & Society, 48(5), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14528957 Estrich, S. (1987). Real rape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Evangelist, M., Ryan, J. P., Victor, B. G., Moore, A., & Perron, B. E. (2017). Disparities at adjudication in the juvenile justice system: An examination of race, gender, and age. Social Work Research, 41(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svx017

Evans, L., & Davies, K. (2014). Small screens and big streets: A comparison of women police officers on primetime crime shows and in U.S. police departments, 1950 to 2008. Women & Criminal Justice, 24(2), 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.842513 Evans, L. J. (1978). Sexual harassment: Women’s hidden occupational hazard. In J. R. Chapman & M. Gates (Eds.), The victimization of women (pp. 202–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Evans, R. D., Forsyth, C. J., & Gauthier, D. K. (2002). Gendered pathways into and experiences within crack cultures outside of the inner city. Deviant Behavior, 23(6), 483–510. Evans-Winters, V., & Esposito, J. (2010). Other people’s daughters: Critical race feminism and Black girls’ education. Journal of Educational Foundations, 24(1/2), 11–24. Evans-Winters, V., Hines, D. E., Moore, A., & Jones, T. L. (2018). Locating black girls in educational policy discourse: Implications for the Every Student Succeeds Act. Teachers College Record, 120(13), 1–18. Fagan, A. A. (2003). The short- and long-term effects of adolescent violent victimization experienced within the family and community. Violence and Victims, 18(4), 445–458. Fagan, A. A. (2005). The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: Support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20(5), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7 Fagan, J. A., Stewart, D. K., & Hansen, K. V. (1983). Violent men or violent husbands? In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, & G. T. Hotaling

(Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 49–68). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Fair, C. D., & Vanyur, J. (2011). Sexual coercion, verbal aggression, and condom use consistency among college students. Journal of American College Health, 59(4), 273–280. Faith, K. (1993). Unruly women: The politics of confinement and resistance. Vancouver, Canada: Press Gang. Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York, NY: Crown. Fanghanel, A., & Lim, J. (2017). Of “sluts” and “arseholes”: Antagonistic desire and the production of sexual vigilance. Feminist Criminology, 12(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115613431 Farkas, M. A. (1999). Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a “get tough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(6), 495–506. Farkas, M. A. (2000). Inmate supervisory style: Does gender make a difference? Women & Criminal Justice, 10(4), 25–45. Farkas, M. A., & Rand, K. R. L. (1997). Female correctional officers and prisoner privacy. Marquette Law Review, 80(4), 995–1030. Farkas, M. A., & Rand, K. R. L. (1999). Sex matters. Women & Criminal Justice, 10(3), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v10n03_03 Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Farley, M., & Barkan, H. (1998). Prostitution, violence, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Women & Health, 27(3), 37–49. Farley, M., & Kelly, V. (2000). Prostitution: A critical review of the medical and social sciences literature. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(4), 29–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v11n04_04 Farnworth, M., & Teske, R. H. C. (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing: Three hypotheses of disparity. Women & Criminal Justice, 6(2), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v06n02_02 Farooq, R., Emerson, L.-M., Keoghan, S., & Adamou, M. (2016). Prevalence of adult ADHD in an all-female prison unit. ADHDAttention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 8(2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-015-0186-x Farr, K. (2018). Adolescent rampage school shootings: Responses to failing masculinity performances by already-troubled boys. Gender Issues, 35(2), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-0179203-z Farr, K. A. (2004). Defeminizing and dehumanizing female murderers: Depictions of lesbians on death row. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 249–260). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Farrell, A. (1998). Mothers offending against their role: An Australian experience. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(4), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v09n04_02 Farrell, C., & Zimmerman, G. M. (2018). Is exposure to violence a persistent risk factor for offending across the life course? Examining the contemporaneous, acute, enduring, and long-term consequences of exposure to violence on property crime, violent

offending, and substance use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(6), 728–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818785207 Farrington, D. P. (1992). Criminal career research in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Criminology, 32(4), 521–536. Farrington, D. P., & Morris, A. M. (1983). Sex, sentencing and reconviction. British Journal of Criminology, 23(3), 229–248. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York, NY: Basic Books. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Beyond difference: Feminism and evolutionary psychology. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 209– 227). London, UK: Jonathan Cape. Federle, K. H., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1992). Special issues in juvenile justice. In I. M. Schwartz (Ed.), Juvenile justice and public policy: Toward a national agenda (pp. 165–195). New York, NY: Macmillan. Fedina, L., Backes, B. L., Jun, H.-J., Shah, R., Nam, B., Link, B. G., & DeVylder, J. E. (2018). Police violence among women in four US cities. Preventive Medicine, 106, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.10.037 Fedock, G., & Sarantakos, S. (2017). Physical and mental health disparities for young women with arrest histories. Health & Social Work, 42(2), e102–e110. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlx015 Feenan, D. (2008). Women judges: Gendering judging, justifying diversity. Journal of Law and Society, 35(4), 490–519.

Feerick, J. D., O’Connor, S. D., & Kaye, J. S. (2012). A conversation with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Judge Judith S. Kaye. Fordham Law Review, 81, 1149–1167. Feinman, C. (1981). Sex-role stereotypes and justice for women. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Women and crime in American (pp. 383–391). New York, NY: Macmillan. Feinman, C. (1983). A historical overview of the treatment of incarcerated women: Myths and realities of rehabilitation. The Prison Journal, 63(2), 12–26. Feinman, C. (1985). Women lawyers and judges in the criminal courts. In I. L. Moyer (Ed.), The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system (pp. 271–275). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Feinman, C. (1986). Women in the criminal justice system (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger. Feinman, C. (1992). Criminal codes, criminal justice and female offenders. In I. L. Moyer (Ed.), The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system: Offenders, victims, and professionals (2nd ed., pp. 57–68). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Felkenes, G. T., & Becker, H. K. (1995). Female gang members: A growing issue for policy makers. Journal of Gang Research, 2(4), 1–10. Felkenes, G. T., Peretz, P., & Schroedel, J. R. (1993). An analysis of the mandatory hiring of females: The Los Angeles Police Department experience. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(2), 31–63. Felkenes, G. T., Trostle, L. C., & Lasley, J. (1990). The impact of Fanchon Blake V. City of Los Angeles on the selection,

recruitment, training, appointment and performance of women and minorities for the Los Angeles Police Department and the City of Los Angeles. Center for Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate School. Felson, R. B., & Cundiff, P. R. (2014). Sexual assault as a crime against young people. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2), 273– 284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0127-8 Felson, R. B., Cundiff, P. R., & Painter-Davis, N. (2012). Age and sexual assault in correctional facilities: A blocked opportunity approach. Criminology, 50(4), 887–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00282.x Felson, R. B., & Lantz, B. (2016). When are victims unlikely to cooperate with the police? Aggressive Behavior, 42(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21626 Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907305039 Fergus, T. D. (1988). Women and the parliamentary franchise in Great Britain. In The legal relevance of gender (pp. 80–101). New York, NY: Springer. Fernandez, M., Iwamoto, K., & Muscat, B. (1997). Dependency and severity of abuse: Impact on women’s persistence in utilizing the court system as protection against domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(1), 39–63. Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75(2), 667–690. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580418 Ferraro, K. J. (1989). Policing woman battering. Social Problems, 36(1), 61–74. Ferraro, K. J., & Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: The process of victimization. Social Problems, 30(3), 325–339. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Ferszt, G. G. (2019). Jailcare: Finding the safety net for women behind Barsby Carolyn Suffrin. Journal of Anthropological Research, 75(1), 119–120. https://doi.org/10.1086/701930 Ferszt, G. G., & Clarke, J. G. (2012). Health care of pregnant women in U.S. state prisons. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 23(2), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2012.0048 Ferszt, G. G., Palmer, M., & McGrane, C. (2018). Where does your state stand on shackling of pregnant incarcerated women? Nursing for Women’s Health, 22(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2017.12.005 Few, A. L., & Bell-Scott, P. (2002). Grounding our feet and hearts: Black women’s coping strategies in psychologically abusive dating relationships. Women & Therapy, 25(3–4), 59–77. Figueira-McDonough, J. (1984). Feminism and delinquency: In search of an elusive link. British Journal of Criminology, 24(4), 325–342.

Figueira-McDonough, J. (1985). Gender differences in informal processing: A look at charge bargaining and sentence reduction in Washington, D. C. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(2), 101–133. Figueira-McDonough, J., Barton, W. H., & Sarri, R. C. (1981). Normal deviance: Gender similarities in adolescent subcultures. In M. Q. Warren (Ed.), Comparing female and male offenders (pp. 17–45). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Figueira-McDonough, J., & Sarri, R. (Eds.). (1987). The trapped woman: Catch-22 in deviance and control. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Figueira-McDonough, J., & Selo, E. (1980). A reformulation of the “equal opportunity” explanation of female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 26(3), 333–343. Figueredo, A. J., Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., Bachar, K. J., White, J., McNeill, P. L., … Castell-Ruiz, I. del P. (2001). Blood, solidarity, status, and honor: The sexual balance of power and spousal abuse in Sonora, Mexico. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(5), 295–328. Figueredo, A. J., & McCloskey, L. A. (1993). Sex, money, and paternity: The evolutionary psychology of domestic violence. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(6), 353–379. Fileborn, B. (2017). Sexual assault and justice for older women: A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(5), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016641666 Fineran, S. (2002). Adolescents at work: Gender issues and sexual harassment. Violence Against Women, 8(8), 953–967.

Finesmith, B. K. (1983). Police response to battered women: A critique and proposals for reform. Seton Hall Law Review, 14(1), 74–109. Finkelhor, D., & Baron, L. (1986). High-risk children. In D. Finkelhor (Ed.), A sourcebook on child sexual abuse (pp. 60–88). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.026 Finkelhor, D., & Yllö, K. (1985). License to rape: Sexual abuse of wives. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Finn, M. A., Blackwell, B. S., Stalans, L. J., Studdard, S., & Dugan, L. (2004). Dual arrest decisions in domestic violence cases: The influence of departmental policies. Crime & Delinquency, 50(4), 565–589. First Negro policewoman joined L.A. force in 1916. (1954). Ebony, 9(11), 32. Fischbach, R. L., & Herbert, B. (1997). Domestic violence and mental health: Correlates and conundrums within and across cultures. Social Science & Medicine, 45(8), 1161–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00022-1 Fischer, K., & Rose, M. (1995). When “enough is enough”: Battered women’s decision making around court orders of protection. Crime & Delinquency, 41(4), 414–429. Fischer, M. L., & Gleijm, H. (1994). Gender gap in management. European Network for Policewomen Newsletter, February, 3-6.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=148809. Fisher, B., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Fisher, B. S., Kaplan, A., Budescu, M., Fargo, J., Tiller, D., Everett, J., & Sommers, M. (2013). The influence of anogenital injury on women’s willingness to engage with the criminal justice process after rape. Violence and Victims, 28(6), 968–983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00109 Fisher, C. (2019). Black women at work in corrections in the era of mass incarceration: Documenting demographic changes in the New York City Department of Correction (Master’s thesis, City University of New York). Fishman, L. T. (1999). Black female gang behavior. In M. ChesneyLind & J. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 64–88). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Fitzgerald, L. (2019). Unseen: The sexual harassment of low-income women in America. Equality Diversity and Inclusion, 39(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2019-0232 Flaherty, C. (2018). Michael Kimmel’s former student is putting a name and details to those harassment “rumors.” Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/10/michaelkimmels-former-student-putting-name-and-details-thoseharassment-rumors Flavin, J. (2001a). Feminism for the mainstream criminologist: An invitation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(4), 271–285.

Flavin, J. (2001b). Of punishment and parenthood: Family-based social control and the sentencing of black drug offenders. Gender & Society, 15(4), 611–633. Flavin, J. (2009). Our bodies, our crimes: The policing of women’s reproduction in America. New York: New York University Press. Fleisher, M. S., & Krienert, J. L. (2004). Life-course events, social networks, and the emergence of violence among female gang members. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(5), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20022 Fletcher, B. R., & Moon, D. G. (1993). Introduction. In B. R. Fletcher, L. D. Shaver, & D. G. Moon (Eds.), Women prisoners (pp. 5–14). Westport, CT: Praeger. Fleury, R. E. (2002). Missing voices: Patterns of battered women’s satisfaction with the criminal legal system. Violence Against Women, 8(2), 181–205. Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2000). When ending the relationship does not end the violence: Women’s experiences of violence by former partners. Violence Against Women, 6(12), 1363–1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022183695 Fleury-Steiner, R. E., Miller, S. L., Maloney, S., & Bonistall Postel, E. (2016). “No contact, except …”: Visitation decisions in protection orders for intimate partner abuse. Feminist Criminology, 11(1), 3– 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114554259 Flicker, S. M., Cerulli, C., Zhao, X., Tang, W., Watts, A., Xia, Y., & Talbot, N. L. (2011). Concomitant forms of abuse and help-seeking behavior among white, African American, and Latina women who experience intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 17(8), 1067–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211414846

Flood, D. R. (2007). Deviance gendered, criminology exposed. Journal of Women’s History, 19(1), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2007.0011 Flores, J. (2016). Caught up: Girls, surveillance, and wraparound incarceration. Oakland: University of California Press. Flores, J., Camacho, A. O., & Santos, X. (2017). Gender on the run: Wanted Latinas in a southern California barrio. Feminist Criminology, 12(3), 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117700265 Flores, R. D. (2018). Can elites shape public attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence from the 2016 US presidential election. Social Forces, 96(4), 1649–1690. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy001 Flowers, R. B. (1987). Women and criminality: The woman as victim, offender, and practitioner. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Flynn, C. P. (2000). Woman’s best friend: Pet abuse and the role of companion animals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against Women, 6(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181778 Flynn, E. E. (1982). Women as criminal justice professionals: A challenge to change tradition. In N. H. Rafter & E. A. Stanko (Eds.), Judge, lawyer, victim thief: Women, gender roles, and criminal justice (pp. 305–340). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Flynn, J. P. (1977). Recent findings related to wife abuse. Social Casework, 58(1), 13–20.

Flynn, N. T., Hanks, R. S., & Gurley, L. (2008). Stirred, shaken, or blended. Women & Criminal Justice, 18(4), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450802095986 Foran, H. M., Snarr, J. D., Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2012). Hazardous alcohol use and intimate partner violence in the military: Understanding protective factors. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(3), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027688 Forbes, A. (2014). Define “sex”: Legal outcomes for transgender individuals in the United States. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 387–403). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9188-0_18 Ford, C. A. (1929). Homosexual practices of institutionalized females. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23(4), 442– 448. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070699 Ford, D. A. (1991). Prosecution as a victim power resource: A note on empowering women in violent conjugal relationships. Law & Society Review, 25(2), 313–334. Ford, D. A. (2003). Coercing victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 669–684. Ford, J. A. (2009). Nonmedical prescription drug use among adolescents: The influence of bonds to family and school. Youth & Society, 40(3), 336–352. Forman, J. (2017). Locking up our own: Crime and punishment in Black America. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Forncrook, E. M. (1924). Probation for women. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 14(4), 605– 619.

Forte, J. A., Franks, D. D., Forte, J. A., & Rigsby, D. (1996). Asymmetrical role-taking: Comparing battered and nonbattered women. Social Work, 41(1), 59–73. Fortenberry, R., Warren, C., & Clark, J. (2006). Carrying in the criminal justice system: Prenatal care of incarcerated women. In R. L. Braithwaite, K. J. Arriola, & C. Newkirk (Eds.), Health issues among incarcerated women (pp. 165–180). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Foster, H. (2011). Incarcerated parents and health: Investigating role inoccupancy strains by gender. Women and Criminal Justice, 21(3), 225–249. Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2017). Gender differences in patterns and trends in U.S. homicide, 1976–2015. Violence and Gender, 4(2), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0016 Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. (2004). Homicide trends in the United States: 2002 update (NCJ Report No. 204885). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus02.pdf Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. W. (2010). Homicide trends in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf Fox, J. G. (1975). Women in crisis. In H. Toch (Ed.), Men in crisis (pp. 181–205). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton. Fox, R., & Van Sickel, R. (2000). Gender dynamics and judicial behavior in criminal trial courts: An exploratory study. Justice System Journal, 21(3), 261–280.

Franiuk, R., Seefelt, J. L., & Vandello, J. A. (2008). Prevalence of rape myths in headlines and their effects on attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles, 58(11–12), 790–801. Franklin, C. (2012). Inventing the “traditional concept” of sex discrimination. Harvard Law Review, 125(6), 1307–1380. Franklin, C. A., Bouffard, L. A., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). Sexual assault on the college campus: Fraternity affiliation, male peer support, and low self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(11), 1457– 1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456527 Franklin, C. A., & Fearn, N. E. (2008). Gender, race, and formal court decision-making outcomes: Chivalry/paternalism, conflict theory or gender conflict? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.04.009 Franklin, T. W. (2010). The intersection of defendants’ race, gender, and age in prosecutorial decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.12.001 Franklin, T. W. (2017). Sentencing outcomes in U.S. district courts: Can offenders’ educational attainment guard against prevalent criminal stereotypes? Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715570627 Frazier, C. E., & Cochran, J. C. (1986). Detention of juveniles: Its effects on subsequent juvenile court processing decisions. Youth & Society, 17(3), 286–305. Frederick, T. (2014). Diversity at the margins: The interconnections between homelessness, sex work, mental health, and substance use in the lives of sexual minority homeless young people. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 473–501). New York, NY: Springer.

Freedman, E. B. (1974). Their sisters’ keepers: An historical perspective on female correctional institutions in the United States: 1870-1900. Feminist Studies, 2(1), 77–95. Freedman, E. B. (1981). Their sisters’ keepers: Women’s prison reform in America, 1830-1930. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Freedman, E. B. (1982). Nineteenth-century women’s prison reform and its legacy. In D. K. Weisberg (Ed.), Women and the law (Vol. 1, pp. 141–157). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Freedman, E. B. (1996). Maternal justice: Miriam Van Waters and the female reform tradition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Freedman, E. B. (2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and segregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Freiburger, T. L. (2011). The impact of gender, offense type, and familial role on the decision to incarcerate. Social Justice Research, 24(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-0110133-8 Freiburger, T. L., & Burke, A. S. (2011). Status offenders in the juvenile court. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(4), 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204011399933 Freiburger, T. L., & Hilinski, C. M. (2013). An examination of the interactions of race and gender on sentencing decisions using a trichotomous dependent variable. Crime & Delinquency, 59(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708330178

Freiburger, T. L., & Romain, D. (2018). An examination of the impacts of gender, race, and ethnicity on the judicial processing of offenders in family violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 64(13), 1663–1697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717743780 Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Norton. Fridel, E. E., & Fox, J. A. (2019). Gender differences in patterns and trends in U.S. homicide, 1976–2017. Violence and Gender, 6(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2019.0005 Friedman, J., & Alicea, M. (1995). Women and heroin: The path of resistance and its consequences. Gender & Society, 9(4), 432– 449. Frigon, S. (1995). A genealogy of women’s madness. In R. E. Dobash, R. Dobash, & L. Noaks (Eds.), Gender and crime (pp. 20–48). Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press. Fritz, S., & Whiteacre, K. (2016). Prison nurseries: Experiences of incarcerated women during pregnancy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1107001 Frohmann, L. (1991). Discrediting victims’ allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems, 38(2), 213–226. Frohmann, L. (1997). Convictability and discordant locales: Reproducing race, class, and gender ideologies in prosecutorial decisionmaking. Law & Society Review, 31(3), 531–556. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054045

Frye, V., Haviland, M., & Rajah, V. (2007). Dual arrest and other unintended consequences of mandatory arrest in New York City: A brief report. Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 397–405. Gaarder, E., & Belknap, J. (2002). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred to adult court. Criminology, 40(3), 481–517. Galeazzi, G. M., Bucˇar-Rucˇman, A., DeFazio, L., & Groenen, A. (2009). Experiences of stalking victims and requests for help in three European countries. A survey. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(3), 243–260. Gallupe, O., & Baron, S. W. (2009). Street youth, relational strain, and drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 39(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260903900304 Galvin-White, C. M., & O’Neal, E. N. (2016). Lesbian police officers’ interpersonal working relationships and sexuality disclosure: A qualitative study. Feminist Criminology, 11(3), 253–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115588359 Gamache, D. J., Edleson, J. L., & Schock, M. D. (1988). Coordinated police, judicial, and social service response to woman battering: A multiple-baseline evaluation across three communities. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick, & M. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 193– 211). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Garcia, C. A. (2003). Digital photographic evidence and the adjudication of domestic violence cases. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(6), 579–587. Garcia, L., Soria, C., & Hurwitz, E. L. (2007). Homicides and intimate partner violence: A literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(4), 370–383.

Garcia, V. (2003). “Difference” in the police department: Women, policing, and “doing gender.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(3), 330–344. Garcia-Hallett, J. (2019). Maternal identities and narratives of motherhood: A qualitative exploration of women’s pathways into and out of offending. Feminist Criminology, 14(2), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118769741 Garfield, G. (2005). Knowing what we know: African American women’s experiences of violence and violation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Garland, T. S., Branch, K. A., & Grimes, M. (2016). Blurring the lines: Reinforcing rape myths in comic books. Feminist Criminology, 11(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115576386 Gaskins, S. (2004). “Women of circumstance”—The effects of mandatory minimum sentencing on women minimally involved in drug crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 41(4), 1533–1553. Gates, M. J. (1976). Occupational segregation and the law. In M. Blaxall & B. Reagan (Eds.), Women and the workplace: The implications of occupational segregation (pp. 61–74). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gau, J. M., Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A. (2013). Looking up: Explaining police promotional aspirations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(3), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812458426 Gaub, J. E., & Holtfreter, K. (2015). New directions in intersections, inequality, and sentencing. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(5), 298– 312. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989299

Gauchat, G., Kelly, M., & Wallace, M. (2012). Occupational gender segregation, globalization, and gender earnings inequality in U.S. metropolitan areas. Gender & Society, 26(5), 718–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212453647 Gault-Sherman, M. (2013). The gender gap in delinquency: Does SES matter? Deviant Behavior, 34(4), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2012.735610 Gauthier, D. K., & Bankston, W. B. (1997). Gender equality and the sex ratio of intimate killing. Criminology, 35(4), 577–600. Gavrilova, E. (2019). A partner in crime: Assortative matching and bias in the crime market. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 159, 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.11.025 Gebhardt, A. R., & Woody, J. D. (2012). American Indian women and sexual assault: Challenges and new opportunities. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 27(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109912452642 Gee, P. W. (1983). Ensuring police protection for battered women: The Scott v. Hart suit. Signs, 8(3), 554–567. Gehring, K. S. (2018). A direct test of pathways theory. Feminist Criminology, 13(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116646195 Gelles, R. J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(4), 873–885. George, K. (2008). Women as collateral damage: A critique of egg harvesting for cloning research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2008.05.008

George, S. S., & Spohn, C. (2018). Liberating discretion: The effect of rape myth factors on prosecutors’ decisions to charge suspects in penetrative and non-penetrative sex offenses. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1280–1308. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1529251 Germann, A. C. (1969). Community policing: An assessment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 60(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1141741 Gezinski, L. B., & Gonzalez-Pons, K. M. (2019). Unlocking the door to safety and stability: Housing barriers for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 088626051985179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519851792 Ghali, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). Gender bias and the criminal justice system: An empirical investigation. Sociology and Social Research, 70(2), 164–171. Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison. New York, NY: Wiley. Giallombardo, R. (1974). The social world of imprisoned girls: A comparative study of institutions for juvenile delinquents. New York, NY: Wiley. Gibbens, T. C. N., & Prince, J. (1962). Shoplifting; a report on research carried out under the auspices of the I.S.T.D. London, UK: Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency. Gibelman, M. (2003). So how far have we come? Pestilent and persistent gender gap in pay. Social Work, 48(1), 22–32. Giddings, P. (1984). When and where I enter: The impact of Black women on race and sex in America. New York, NY: W. Morrow.

Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., Chang, M., Wu, E., & Roy, L. (2012). Substance use and partner violence among urban women seeking emergency care. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(2), 226– 235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025869 Gilfus, M. E. (1993). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women & Criminal Justice, 4(1), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v04n01_04 Gilham, J. J. M. (2012). A qualitative study of incarcerated mothers’ perceptions of the impact of separation on their children. Social Work in Public Health, 27(1–2), 89–103. Gillespie, C. K. (1989). Justifiable homicide: Battered women, selfdefense, and the law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gillum, T. L., & DiFulvio, G. T. (2014). Examining dating violence and its mental health consequences among sexual minority youth. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 431–448). New York, NY: Springer. Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Howell, J. C., & Kosterman, R. (2014). The developmental dynamics of joining a gang in adolescence: Patterns and predictors of gang membership. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12121 Gilroy, H., Nava, A., & McFarlane, J. (2019). Developing a theory of economic solvency for women who have experienced intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 107780121985336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219853366

Gilroy, P. J., & Carroll, L. (2009). Woman to woman sexual violence. Women & Therapy, 32(4), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703140903153419 Gilson, S. F., DePoy, E., & Cramer, E. P. (2001). Linking the assessment of self-reported functional capacity with abuse experiences of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women, 7(4), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122182532 Ginsburg, R. B. (2004). Remarks on women’s progress at the bar and on the bench. Cornell Law Review, 89, 801–807. Ginsburg, R. B., & Brill, L. W. (1995). Women in the federal judiciary: Three way pavers and the exhilerating change President Carter wrought. Fordham Law Review, 64, 281–290. Gion, C., McIntosh, K., & Smolkowski, K. (2018). Examination of American Indian/Alaska Native school discipline disproportionality using the vulnerable decision points approach. Behavioral Disorders, 44(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918773438 Giordano, P. C. (1978). Girls, guys and gangs: The changing social context of female delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 69(1), 126–132. Giordano, P. C. (1999). The changing social context of female delinquency. In M. Chesney-Lind & J. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 90–99). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.

Giordano, P. C., & Copp, J. E. (2019). Girls’ and women’s violence: The question of general versus uniquely gendered causes. In J. Petersilia & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), Annual review of criminology (Vol. 2, pp. 167–189). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Giordano, P. C., Kerbel, S., & Dudley, S. (1981). The economics of female criminality. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Women and crime in America (pp. 65–82). New York, NY: Macmillan. Giorgio, G. (2002). Speaking silence: Definitional dialogues in abusive lesbian relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(10), 1233–1259. Girgenti, A. A. (2015). The intersection of victim race and gender: The “Black male victim effect” and the death penalty. Race and Justice, 5(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368715570060 Girshick, L. B. (1999). No safe haven: Stories of women in prison. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Girshick, L. B. (2002a). No sugar, no spice: Reflections on research on woman-to-woman sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1500–1520. Girshick, L. B. (2002b). Woman-to-woman sexual violence: Does she call it rape? Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Glass, N., Koziol-McLain, J., Campbell, J., & Block, C. R. (2004). Female-perpetrated femicide and attempted femicide: A case study. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 606–625. Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2010). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ Report No. 222984). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf

Gleason, S. A. (2019). Beyond mere presence: Gender norms in oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919847001 Gleason, S. A., Jones, J. J., & McBean, J. R. (2019). The role of gender norms in judicial decision-making at the U.S. Supreme Court: The case of male and female justices. American Politics Research, 47(3), 494–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18766466 Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.56.2.109 Glick, R. M., & Neto, V. V. (1982). National study of women’s correctional programs. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), Criminal justice system and women (pp. 141–154). New York, NY: Clark & Boardman. Goetting, A., & Howsen, R. M. (1983). Women in prison: A profile. The Prison Journal, 63(2), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558306300204 Goldblum, P., Testa, R. J., Pflum, S., Hendricks, M. L., Bradford, J., & Bongar, B. (2012). The relationship between gender-based victimization and suicide attempts in transgender people. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 43(5), 468–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029605

Goldfarb, S. F. (2008). Reconceiving civil protection orders for domestic violence: Can law help end the abuse without ending the relationship? Cardozo Law Review, 29(4), 1487–1551. Gondolf, E. W., & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to treating learned helplessness. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Goodman, L., & Epstein, D. (2005). Refocusing on women: A new direction for policy and research on intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 479–487. Goodman, M., Dawson, R., & Burlingame. (2016). Reproductive health behind bars in California. American Civil Liberties Union of California. https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Reproductive%20Health %20Behind%20Bars%20in%20California.pdf Goodmark, L. (2018). Decriminalizing domestic violence: A balanced policy approach to intimate partner violence. Oakland: University of California Press. Goodrum, S., Umberson, D., & Anderson, K. L. (2001). The batterer’s view of the self and others in domestic violence. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 221–240. Goodwin, M. (2013). Law’s limits: Regulating statutory rape law. Wisconsin Law Review, 2013(2), 481–540. Gordon, D. M. (1973). Capitalism, class, and crime in America. Crime & Delinquency, 19(2), 163–186. Gordon, L. (1976). Woman’s body, woman’s right: A social history of birth control in America. Grossman.

Gordon, L., & O’Keefe, P. (1984). Incest as a form of family violence: Evidence from historical case records. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 27–34. Gorman, E. H. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 702–728. Gornick, J., Burt, M. R., & Pittman, K. J. (2016). Structure and activities of rape crisis centers in the early 1980s: Crime & Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128785031002006 Goshin, L. S., Arditti, J. A., Dallaire, D. H., Shlafer, R. J., & Hollihan, A. (2017). An international human rights perspective on maternal criminal justice involvement in the United States. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000101 Goshin, L. S., Byrne, M. W., & Blanchard-Lewis, B. (2014). Preschool outcomes of children who lived as infants in a prison nursery. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885514524692 Goshin, L. S., Byrne, M. W., & Henninger, A. M. (2014). Recidivism after release from a prison nursery program. Public Health Nursing, 31(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12072 Goshin, L. S., & Colbert, A. M. (2019). The health of incarcerated pregnant women: Some much needed data and beyond. American Journal of Public Health, 109(5), 657–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305044 Goshin, L. S., Sissoko, D. R. G., Neumann, G., Sufrin, C., & Byrnes, L. (2019). Perinatal nurses’ experiences with and knowledge of the care of incarcerated women during pregnancy and the postpartum

period. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 48(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2018.11.002 Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gottschalk, M. (2009). Money and mass incarceration: The bad, the mad, and penal reform. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 97–109. Gould, D. D., Watson, S. L., Price, S. R., & Valliant, P. M. (2013). The relationship between burnout and coping in adult and young offender center correctional officers: An exploratory investigation. Psychological Services, 10(1), 37–47. Gove, W. R. (1972). The relationship between sex roles, marital status, and mental illness. Social Forces, 51(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2576129 Gove, W. R. (1973). Sex, marital status, and mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1086/225505 Gove, W. R., & Tudor, J. F. (1973). Adult sex roles and mental illness. American Journal of Sociology, 78(4), 812–835. https://doi.org/10.1086/225404 Gover, A. R., Welton-Mitchell, C., Belknap, J., & DePrince, A. P. (2013). When abuse happens again: Women’s reasons for not reporting new incidents of intimate partner violence to law enforcement. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(2), 99–120. Gradus, J. L., King, M. W., Galatzer-Levy, I., & Street, A. E. (2017). Gender differences in machine learning models of trauma and suicidal ideation in veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30(4), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22210

Gradus, J. L., Shipherd, J. C., Suvak, M. K., Giasson, H. L., & Miller, M. (2013). Suicide attempts and suicide among Marines: A decade of follow-up. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 43(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00126.x Graham, D. (1986). It’s getting better, slowly. ABA Journal, 72(Dec), 54–56, 58. Grant, D. R. (2000). Perceived gender differences in policing: The impact of gendered perceptions of officer-situation “fit.” Women & Criminal Justice, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v12n01_04 Gratch, L. (1995). Sexual harassment among police officers. In A. V. Merlo & J. M. Pollock (Eds.), Women, law and social control (pp. 55–77). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Grau, J., Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1984). Restraining orders for battered women: Issues of access and efficacy. Women & Politics, 4(3), 13–28. Gray, S., & Rarick, S. (2018). Exploring gender and racial/ethnic differences in the effects of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(5), 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1484403 Gray, T., Mays, G. L., & Stohr, M. K. (1995). Inmate needs and programming in exclusively women’s jails. The Prison Journal, 75(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855595075002004 Green, B. L., Dass-Brailsford, P., de Mendoza, A. H., Mete, M., Lynch, S. M., DeHart, D. D., & Belknap, J. (2016). Trauma experiences and mental health among incarcerated women. Psychological Trauma-Theory Research Practice and Policy, 8(4), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000113

Green, C. A., Freeborn, D. K., & Polen, M. R. (2001). Gender and alcohol use: The roles of social support, chronic illness, and psychological well-being. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24(4), 383–399. Green, K. M., Doherty, E. E., Sifat, M. S., & Ensminger, M. E. (2019). Explaining continuity in substance use: The role of criminal justice system involvement over the life course of an urban African American prospective cohort. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 195, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.09.033 Greenberg, R. (2007). Children and families: Mothers who are incarcerated. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v29n03_09 Greene, H. T., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2000). African American criminological thought. Albany: State University of New York Press. Greene, L. S. (1997). Tokens, role models, and pedagogical politics. In Adrien Katherine Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism: A reader (pp. 88–95). New York: New York University Press. Greener, B. K., Fish, W. J., & Tekulu, K. (2011). Peacebuilding, gender and policing in Solomon Islands. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 52(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2011.01439.x Greenfeld, L. A., & Snell, T. L. (1999). Women offenders (NCJ Report No. 175688). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Gregory, J. (1987). Sex, race and the law: Legislating for equality. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Grella, C. E., Lovinger, K., & Warda, U. S. (2013). Relationships among trauma exposure, familial characteristics, and PTSD: A

case-control study of women in prison and in the general population. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.743376 Grennan, S. A. (1987). Findings on the role of officer gender in violent encounters with citizens. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15(1), 78–85. Griffin, M. L. (2002). The influence of professional orientation on detention officers’ attitudes toward the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(3), 250–277. Griffin, M. L. (2006). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources of stress among correctional officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22(1), 4–25. Griffin, M. L. (2007). Women as breadwinners. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v17n01_01 Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., & Lambert, E. G. (2012). Doing “people work” in the prison setting: An examination of the job characteristics model and correctional staff burnout. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1131–1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812442358 Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., & Lambert, E. G. (2014). Career stage theory and turnover intent among correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503638 Griffin, S. (1971). Rape: The all-American crime. Ramparts, September, 26–35. Griffin, T., & Wooldredge, J. (2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio.

Criminology, 44(4), 893–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17459125.2006.00067.x Grillo, T. (1997). Tenure and minority women law professors: Separating the strands. University of San Francisco Law Review, 31(4), 747–755. Griner, S. B., Vamos, C. A., Thompson, E. L., Logan, R., VázquezOtero, C., & Daley, E. M. (2017). The intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by transgender college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723743 Gross, G. M., Kroll-Desrosiers, A., & Mattocks, K. (2020). A longitudinal investigation of military sexual trauma and perinatal depression. Journal of Womens Health, 29(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7628 Gross, S. (1984). Women becoming cops: Developmental issues and solutions. Police Chief, 51(1), 32–35. Groth, A. N. (with Birnbaum, H. J). (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Grothoff, G. E., Kempf-Leonard, K., & Mullins, C. (2014). Gender and juvenile drug abuse: A general strain theory perspective. Women & Criminal Justice, 24(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.842519 Growdon, C. H. (1931). The mental status of reformatory women. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 22(2), 196–220. Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002 Gruber, A. (2012). A “neo-feminist” assessment of rape and domestic violence law reform. Journal of Gender, Race, & Justice, 15(3), 583–615. Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as policymakers: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 308–322. Gruhl, J., Welch, S., & Spohn, C. (1984). Women as criminal defendants: A test for paternalism. Western Political Quarterly, 37(3), 456–467. Guadalupe-Diaz, X. L. (2019). Transgressed: Intimate partner violence in transgender lives. New York: New York University Press. Guajardo, S. A. (2016). Women in policing: A longitudinal assessment of female officers in supervisory positions in the New York City Police Department. Women & Criminal Justice, 26(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.997418 Guevara, L., Herz, D., & Spohn, C. (2008). Race, gender, and legal counsel. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204007303939 Guibord, A. S. B. (1917). Physical states of criminal women. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 8(1), 82– 95. Guinier, L., Fine, M., Balin, J., Bartow, A., & Stachel, D. L. (1994). Becoming gentlemen: Women’s experiences at one Ivy League

law-school. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 143(1), 1– 110. Gunnison, E. (2015). Investigating life course offender subgroup heterogeneity: An exploratory latent class analysis approach. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989300 Gustafson, J. L. (2008). Tokenism in policing: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 1–10. Guy-Sheftall, B. (Ed.). (1995). Words of fire: An anthology of AfricanAmerican feminist thought. New York, NY: New Press. Gwartney-Gibbs, P., & Stockard, J. (1989). Courtship aggression and mixed-sex peer groups. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 185– 204). Westport, CT: Praeger. Haarr, R. N., & Morash, M. (1999). Gender, race, and strategies of coping with occupational stress in policing. Justice Quarterly, 16(2), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829900094151 Haft, M. G. (1980). Women in prison: Discriminatory practices and some legal solutions. In S. K. Datesman & F. R. Scarpitti (Eds.), Women, crime, and justice (pp. 320–338). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hagan, J. (1990). The gender stratification of income inequality among lawyers. Social Forces, 68(3), 835–855.

Hagan, J., Boehnke, K., & Merkens, H. (2004). Gender differences in capitalization processes and the delinquency of siblings in Toronto and Berlin. British Journal of Criminology, 44(5), 659–676. Hagan, J., & Coleman, J. P. (2001). Returning captives of the American war on drugs: Issues of community and family reentry. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047003004 Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2006). Profiles of punishment and privilege: Secret and disputed deviance during the racialized transition to American adulthood. Crime Law and Social Change, 46(1–2), 65– 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-006-9047-z Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012a). Children of the American prison generation: Student and school spillover effects of incarcerating mothers. Law & Society Review, 46(1), 37–69. Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012b). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education, 85(3), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711431587 Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90(2), 1151. Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (1995). Gender in practice: A study of lawyers’ lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. R. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 788–816.

Hagan, J., Zatz, M., Arnold, B., & Kay, F. (1991). Cultural capital, gender, and the structural transformation of legal practice. Law & Society Review, 25(2), 239–262. Hagedorn, J. M., & Devitt, M. L. (1999). Fighting female. In Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 256– 276). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Hale, D. C. (1992). Women in policing. In G. W. Cordner & D. C. Hale (Eds.), What works in policing? Operations and administration examined (pp. 125–142). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Hale, D. C., & Bennett, C. L. (1995). Realities of women in policing: An organizational cultural perspective. In A. V. Merlo & J. M. Pollock (Eds.), Women, law, and social control (pp. 41–54). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Haley, K. (1980). Mothers behind bars: A look at the parental rights of incarcerated women. In S. K. Datesman & F. R. Scarpitti (Eds.), Women, crime, and justice (pp. 339–354). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hall, G. C. N., Hirschman, R., Graham, J. R., & Zaragoza, M. S. (Eds.). (1993). Sexual aggression: Issues in etiology, assessment, and treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Halpern, C. T., Spriggs, A. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(5), 508–516. Halter, S. (2010). Factors that influence police conceptualizations of girls involved in prostitution in six U.S. cities: Child sexual exploitation victims or delinquents? Child Maltreatment, 15(2), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559509355315

Hamberger, L. K., & Guse, C. E. (2002). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1301–1331. Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003004005 Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 959–970. https://doi.org/10.2307/354016 Hamilton, C. L. (2019). Loving beyond the binary: Applying associational discrimination to gender identity under Title VII. Boston University Law Review, 99(5), 2211–2248. Hamilton, J. A., Alagna, S. W., King, L. S., & Lloyd, C. (1987). The emotional consequences of gender-based abuse in the workplace. Women & Therapy, 6(1–2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015V06N01_13 Hamilton, M. (2017). Sentencing disparities. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 6(2), 177–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjals-2017-0010 Hamilton, M., & Worthen, M. G. (2011). Sex disparities in arrest outcomes for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1559–1578. Hammersley, R. (2011). Pathways through drugs and crime: Desistance, trauma and resilience. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(3), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.02.006

Hammett, T. M., & Drachman-Jones, A. (2006). HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and incarceration among women: National and southern perspectives. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33(Suppl. 7), S17–S22. Handwerker, W. P. (1998). Why violence? A test of hypotheses representing three discourses on the roots of domestic violence. Human Organization, 57(2), 200–208. Haney, L. (2000). Feminist state theory: Applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 641–666. Haney, L. (2013). Motherhood as punishment: The case of parenting in prison. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 39(1), 105–130. Haney-López, I. (2006). White by law: The legal construction of race (Rev. & updated, 10th anniversary ed.). New York: New York University Press. Hankins, C. A., Gendron, S., Handley, M. A., Richard, C., Tung, M. T. L., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (1994). HIV infection among women in prison: An assessment of risk factors using a nonnominal methodology. American Journal of Public Health, 84(10), 1637– 1640. Hannah-Moffat, K. (1994). Unintended consequences of feminism and prison reform. Forum on Corrections Research, 6, 7–10. Hannah-Moffat, K., & Yule, C. (2011). Gaining insight, changing attitudes and managing “risk”: Parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes. Punishment & Society, 13(2), 149– 175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474510394961

Hansen, J. G., & Dim, E. E. (2019). Canada’s missing and murdered Indigenous people and the imperative for a more inclusive perspective. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2019.10.1.2 Hansen, N. B., Hansen, M., Nielsen, L. H., Bramsen, R. H., Elklit, A., & Campbell, R. (2018). Rape crimes: Are victims’ acute psychological distress and perceived social support associated with police case decision and victim willingness to participate in the investigation? Violence Against Women, 24(6), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217710002 Hardesty, J. L., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Raffaelli, M., Ogolsky, B. G., & Johnson, M. P. (2015). Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control and classifying violence types: Operationalizing control and classifying violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12201 Hardesty, J. L., Khaw, L., Ridgway, M. D., Weber, C., & Miles, T. (2013). Coercive control and abused women’s decisions about their pets when seeking shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(13), 2617–2639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513487994 Hardesty, J. L., & Ogolsky, B. G. (2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate partner violence research: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12652 Hare, S. C. (2010). Intimate partner violence: Victims’ opinions about going to trial. Journal of Family Violence, 25(8), 765–776. Haritavorn, N. (2019). Resisting violence: The construction of tactics among Thai women who inject drugs. Feminist Criminology, 14(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116685397

Harmon, M. G., & Boppre, B. (2018). Women of color and the war on crime: An explanation for the rise in Black female imprisonment. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 16(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2015.1052173 Harmon, M. G., & O’Brien, R. M. (2011). Gendered arrest or gendered sentencing: Explaining the narrowing of the gender gap in imprisonment over time: 1970-2008. Sociological Perspectives, 54(4), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2011.54.4.641 Harner, H., & Burgess, A. W. (2011). Using a trauma-informed framework to care for incarcerated women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 40(4), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2011.01259.x Harp, K. L. H., & Oser, C. B. (2018). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of child custody loss on drug use and crime among a sample of African American mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.12.017 Harper, S. B. (2017). No way out: Severely abused Latina women, patriarchal terrorism, and self-help homicide. Feminist Criminology, 12(3), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116680743 Harrington, P., & Lonsway, K. A. (2004). Current barriers and future promise for women in policing. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 495–510). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Harris, A. P. (1990). Race and essentialism in feminist legal theory. Stanford Law Review, 42(3), 581–616. Harris, A. P. (2011). Heteropatriarchy kills: Challenging gender violence in a prison nation. Washington University Journal of Law

& Policy, 37, 13–65. Harris, C. (2011). Problem behaviors in later portions of officers’ careers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111106650 Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(2), 102–128. Harris, M. B. (1996). Aggression, gender, and ethnicity. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(2), 123–146. Harris, V., & Goldsmith, A. (2010). Gendering transnational policing: Experiences of Australian women in international policing operations. International Peacekeeping, 17(2), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533311003625167 Harrison, J. (2012). Women in law enforcement: Subverting sexual harassment with social bonds. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 226–238. Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/pjim04.pdf Harsey, S. J., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2017). Perpetrator responses to victim confrontation: DARVO and victim self-blame. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(6), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1320777 Hart, C. B. (1995). Gender differences in social support among inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 6(2), 67–88.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v06n02_04 Hart, C. O., & Mueller, C. E. (2013). School delinquency and social bond factors: Exploring gendered differences among a national sample of 10th graders. Psychology in the Schools, 50(2), 116– 133. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21662 Hart, T., & Rennison, C. (2003). Reporting crime to the police, 19922000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rcp00.pdf Hartley, R. D., Kwak, D.-H., Park, M., & Lee, M.-S. (2011). Exploring sex disparity in sentencing outcomes: A focus on narcotics offenders in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09360966 Hartley, R. D., Miller, H. V., & Spohn, C. (2010). Do you get what you pay for? Type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.009 Hartley, R. D., & Tillyer, R. (2018). Examining prosecutorial discretion in federal criminal cases: legal and extra-legal determinants of declination and charge change decisions. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1530367 Hartman, J. L., & Belknap, J. (2003). Beyond the gatekeepers: Court professionals’ self-reported attitudes about and experiences with misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 349–373. Hassell, K. D., & Brandl, S. G. (2009). An examination of the workplace experiences of police patrol officers: The role of race,

sex, and sexual orientation. Police Quarterly, 12(4), 408–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611109348473 Hassett-Walker, C., Walsemann, K., Bell, B., Fisk, C., Shadden, M., & Zhou, W. (2017). How does early adulthood arrest alter substance use behavior? Are there differential effects by race/ethnicity and gender? Journal of Developmental and LifeCourse Criminology, 3(2), 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0060-y Hassouneh, D., & Glass, N. (2008). The influence of gender role stereotyping on women’s experiences of female same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 14(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207313734 Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2013). Images of powerful women in the age of “choice feminism.” Journal of Gender Studies, 22(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681184 Hawkes, M. Q. (1998). Edna Mahan: Sustaining the reformatory tradition. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(3), 1–21. Hay, C. (2003). Family strain, gender, and delinquency. Sociological Perspectives, 46(1), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2003.46.1.107 Hay, C., & Evans, M. M. (2006). Violent victimization and involvement in delinquency: Examining predictions from general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.03.005 Hayes, B. E. (2018). Repeat victimization among intimate partner violence victims: The impact of guardianship. Feminist Criminology, 13(2), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116651714

Hayes, R. M., Lorenz, K., & Bell, K. A. (2013). Victim blaming others: Rape myth acceptance and the just world belief. Feminist Criminology, 8(3), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113484788 Hayes, T. A. (2000). Stigmatizing indebtedness: Implications for labeling theory. Symbolic Interaction, 23(1), 29–46. Haywood, P. (2017, June 30). Judge: Breast-feed ban in state prison violates constitution. Santa Fe New Mexican. https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/judgebreast-feed-ban-in-state-prison-violatesconstitution/article_199084e1-bf2b-5381-b4ad-c37a5d9a5e95.html Healey, J. F. (2006). Race, ethnicity, gender, and class: The sociology of group conflict and change (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Hearn, J. (1994). [Review of the book Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory, by James W. Messerschmidt]. Sociology: Journal of the British Sociological Association, 28(2), 632–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038594028002060 Heath, N. M., Lynch, S. M., Fritch, A. M., McArthur, L. N., & Smith, S. L. (2011). Silent durvivors: Rape myth acceptance in incarcerated women’s narratives of disclosure and reporting of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(4), 596–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311407870 Heckert, D. A., & Gondolf, E. W. (2000). Predictors of underreporting of male violence by batterer program participants and their partners. Journal of Family Violence, 15(4), 423–443. Heidensohn, F. (1985). Women and crime. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Heidensohn, F. (1992). Women in control? The role of women in law enforcement. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Heimer, K., & De Coster, S. (1999). The gendering of violent delinquency. Criminology, 37(2), 277–317. Heise, L. (1994). Gender-based violence and women’s reproductive health. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 46(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(94)90239-9 Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottmoeller, M. (2002). A global overview of gender-based violence. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 78(Suppl. 1), S5–S14. Helfgott, J. B., Gunnison, E., Murtagh, A., & Navejar, B. (2018). BADASSES: The rise of women in criminal justice. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(4), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1468296 Hemmens, C., Stohr, M. K., Schoeler, M., & Miller, B. (2002). One step up, two steps back: The progression of perceptions of women’s work in prisons and jails. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(6), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00170-8 Heng, B. C. (2008). Egg sharing in return for subsidized fertility treatment-ethical challenges and pitfalls. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 25(4), 159–161. Henne, K., & Troshynski, E. I. (2019). Intersectional criminologies for the contemporary moment: Crucial questions of power, praxis and technologies of control. Critical Criminology, 27(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09441-z Hennessey, K. A., Stein, M. D., Rosengard, C., Rose, J. S., & Clarke, J. G. (2010). Childhood attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder, substance use, and adult functioning among incarcerated women. Journal of Attention Disorders, 14(3), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054709347185 Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(6), 612–642. Henriksen, A.-K., & Miller, J. (2012). Dramatic lives and relevant becomings: Toward a Deleuze- and Guattari-inspired cartography of young women’s violent conflicts. Theoretical Criminology, 16(4), 435. Henriques, Z. W. (1996). Imprisoned mothers and their children. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v08n01_05 Henry, M. (2012). Peacexploitation? Interrogating labor hierarchies and global sisterhood among Indian and Uruguayan female peacekeepers? Globalizations, 9(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2012.627716 Hensley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Herman, J. L. (2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 571–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205274450 Hernandez, E. (2016). It’s like any dating relationship. They’re just successful enough to give you gifts, too. Denver Post. Hernández, K. L. (2017). City of inmates: Conquest, rebellion, and the rise of human caging in Los Angeles, 1771-1965. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Hester, M. (2013). Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators in English police records. European Journal of Criminology, 10(5), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370813479078 Hester, R., & Hartman, T. K. (2017). Conditional race disparities in criminal sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis from a nonguidelines state. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(1), 77– 100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9283-z Hester, R., & Sevigny, E. L. (2016). Court communities in local context: A multilevel analysis of felony sentencing in South Carolina. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.913494 Hetling, A., Dunford, A., Lin, S., & Michaelis, E. (2018). Long-term housing and intimate partner violence: Journeys to healing. Affilia. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109918778064 Hill, G. D., & Atkinson, M. P. (1988). Gender, familial control, and delinquency. Criminology, 26(1), 127–149. Hill, G. D., & Crawford, E. M. (1990). Women, race, and crime. Criminology, 28(4), 601–626. Hill, M. S., & Fischer, A. R. (2001). Does entitlement mediate the link between masculinity and rape-related variables? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(1), 39–50. Hiller, A. E., & Hancock, L. (1981). The processing of juveniles in Victoria. In S. K. Mukherjee & J. A. Scutt (Eds.), Women and crime (pp. 92–126). North Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Himmelstein, K. E. W., & Brückner, H. (2011). Criminal-justice and school sanctions against nonheterosexual youth: A national

longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(1), 49–57. Hindelang, M. J. (1971). Age, sex, and versatility of delinquent involvements. Social Problems, 18(4), 522–535. Hindelang, M. J. (1973). Causes of delinquency: A partial replication and extension. Social Problems, 20(4), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/799709 Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-90520 Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on intimate partner aggression: A preliminary study. Violence and Victims, 19(6), 701–718. Hirschel, D., & Buzawa, E. (2002). Understanding the context of dual arrest with directions for future research. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1449–1473. Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., & Faggiani, D. (2007). Domestic violence and mandatory arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 98(1), 255–298. Hirschel, D., & Hutchison, I. W. (2001). The relative effects of offense, offender, and victim variables on the decision to prosecute domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 7(1), 46–59. Hirschel, D., & Hutchison, I. W. (2003). The voices of domestic violence victims: Predictors of victim preference for arrest and the

relationship between preference for arrest and revictimization. Crime & Delinquency, 49(2), 313–336. Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W., III, & Dean, C. W. (1992). The failure of arrest to deter spouse abuse. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 7–33. Hirschel, J., & Hutchison, I. (1992). Female spouse abuse and the police response—The Charlotte, North Carolina experiment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83(1), 73–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143825 Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hirschtritt, M. E., Dauria, E. F., Marshall, B. D. L., & Tolou-Shams, M. (2018). Sexual minority, justice-involved youth: A hidden population in need of integrated mental health, substance use, and sexual health services. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(4), 421– 428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.05.020 Hirtenlehner, H., Blackwell, B. S., Leitgoeb, H., & Bacher, J. (2014). Explaining the gender gap in juvenile shoplifting: A power-control theoretical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 35(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.822217 Hirtenlehner, H., & Treiber, K. (2017). Can situational action theory explain the gender gap in adolescent shoplifting? Results from Austria. International Criminal Justice Review, 27(3), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567717690199 Hockenberry, S., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Delinquency cases waived to criminal court, 2011. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1–4.

Hoff, J. (1991). Law, gender, and injustice: A legal history of U.S. women. New York: New York University Press. Hoff, L. A. (1990). Battered women as survivors. New York, NY: Routledge. Hoffman-Bustamante, D. (1973). Nature of female criminality. Issues in Criminology, 8(2), 117–136. Hoffmann, J. P., & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life events and delinquency escalation in early adolescence. Criminology, 37(2), 343–373. Hoffmann, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(1), 46–78. Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., & Griffin, M. L. (2013). Loyalty, love, and investments: The impact of job outcomes on the organizational commitment of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812469944 Holcomb, J. E., Williams, M. R., & Demuth, S. (2004). White female victims and death penalty disparity research. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 877–902. Holden, A. C. L. (2018). Cosmetic dentistry: A socioethical evaluation. Bioethics, 32(9), 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12498 Holleran, L. L. B., & Vandiver, D. M. (2016). U.S. homicides: Multioffenders and the presence of female offenders. Violence and Gender, 3(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2015.0043

Holley, P. D., & Brewster, D. (1996). The women at Eddie Warrior Correctional Center: Descriptions from a data set. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 3, 107–114. Holley, P. D., & Brewster, D. (1997). A brief history of women in Oklahoma corrections: Inmates and employees. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 4. Holliday, C. N., Morse, S. M., Irvin, N. A., Green-Manning, A., Nitsch, L. M., Burke, J. G., Campbell, J. C., & Decker, M. R. (2019). Concept mapping: Engaging urban men to understand community influences on partner violence perpetration. Journal of Urban Health, 96(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0297-8 Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other secure congregate facilities. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/0611_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf Holsinger, K., & Hodge, J. P. (2016). The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender girls in juvenile justice systems. Feminist Criminology, 11(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114557071 Holt, K. E. (1982). Nine months to life—The law and the pregnant inmate. Journal of Family Law, 20(3), 523–543. Holtfreter, K. (2005). Is occupational fraud “typical” white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and organizational characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 353–365. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Part III: Sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and differing

consequences of husband and wife violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(3), 285–307. Homan, P. (2019). Structural sexism and health in the United States: A new perspective on health inequality and the gender system. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 486–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419848723 Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1985). Police perceptions of spouse abuse: A comparison of male and female officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13(1), 29–47. hooks, bell. (1984). Feminist theory from margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press. hooks, bell. (1990). Feminism: A transformational politic. In Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 185–196). New Haven CT: Yale University Press. hooks, bell. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press. Hopper, I., Ahern, S., McNeil, J. J., Deva, A. K., Elder, E., Moore, C., & Cooter, R. (2017). Improving the safety of breast implants: Implant-associated lymphoma. Medical Journal of Australia, 207(5), 185–186. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.00005 Horan, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2015). Cumulative childhood risk and adult functioning in abused and neglected children grown up. Development and Psychopathology, 27(3), 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941400090X Horowitz, V., & Uggen, C. (2019). Consistency and compensation in mercy: Commutation in the era of mass incarceration. Social Forces, 97(3), 1205–1230. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy065

Hoskins, K. M., & Morash, M. (2020). How women on probation and parole incorporate trauma into their identities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898426 Howard, R. M., Potter, S. J., Guedj, C. E., & Moynihan, M. M. (2019). Sexual violence victimization among community college students. Journal of American College Health, 67(7), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1500474 Howe, A. (1994). Punish and critique: Towards a feminist analysis of penality. New York, NY: Routledge. Hsieh, M.-L., & Schwartz, J. (2018). Female violence and gender gap trends in Taiwan: Offender-behavioral changes or netwidening enforcement explanations? Feminist Criminology, 13(1), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115626798 Huang, B., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Modeling mediation in the etiology of violent behavior and adolescence: A test of the social development model. Criminology, 39(1), 75–107. Huang, K., Atlas, R., & Parvez, F. (2012). The significance of breastfeeding to incarcerated pregnant women: an exploratory study. Birth, 39(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523536X.2012.00528.x Hubbard, D. J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Reconciling the differences between the “gender-responsive” and the “what works” literatures to improve services for girls. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2), 225– 258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706296733 Hudson, B. (1989). Justice or welfare? In M. Cain (Ed.), Growing up good: Policing the behaviour of girls in Europe (pp. 96–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Huebner, A. J., & Betts, S. C. (2002). Exploring the utility of social control theory for youth development: Issues of attachment, involvement, and gender. Youth & Society, 34(2), 123–145. Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.005 Huemmer, J., McLaughlin, B., & Blumell, L. E. (2019). Leaving the past (self) behind: Non-reporting rape survivors’ narratives of self and action. Sociology, 53(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518773926 Huerta, M., Cortina, L. M., Pang, J. S., Torges, C. M., & Magley, V. J. (2006). Sex and power in the academy: Modeling sexual harassment in the lives of college women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284281 Huesmann, L. R., Lefkowitz, M. M., Eron, L. D., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1120–1134. Hughes, E. C. (1945). Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology, 50(5), 353–359. Hughes, L. A. (2005). The representation of females in criminological research. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(1–2), 1–28. Hughes, L. A., Botchkovar, E. V., & Short, J. F. (2019). “Bargaining with patriarchy” and “bad girl femininity”: Relationship and behaviors among Chicago girl gangs, 1959–62. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz002

Hull, K. E., & Nelson, R. L. (2000). Assimilation, choice, or constraint? Testing theories of gender differences in the careers of lawyers. Social Forces, 79(1), 229–264. Human Rights Watch. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. state prisons. New York, NY: Author. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Us1.htm Human Rights Watch. (1998). Nowhere to hide: Retaliation against women in Michigan state prisons. New York, NY: Author. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/women/Mich.htm#P37_769 Humphries, D. (1999). Crack mothers: Pregnancy, drugs, and the media. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Hussemann, J. M., & Page, J. (2011). Gender diversity and the prospects for progressive prison reform. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(4), 267–289. Hussong, A. M. (2000). The settings of adolescent alcohol and drug use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(1), 107–119. Hutson, A. C. F., & Krueger, J. C. (2018). The harasser’s toolbox: Investigating the role of mobility in street harassment. Violence Against Women, 25(7), 767–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218804100 Hyland, S. S., & Davis, E. (2019). Local police departments personnel, 2016 (NCJ Report No. 252835). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd16p.pdf Immarigeon, R. (1987). Women in prison. Journal of the National Prison Project, 11, 1–5.

Immarigeon, R., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1992). Women’s prisons overcrowded and overused. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Inciardi, J. A., Lockwood, D., & Pottieger, A. E. (1993). Women and crack-cocaine. New York, NY: Macmillan. Inciardi, J. A., Pottieger, A. E., Forney, M. A., Chitwood, D. D., & McBride, D. C. (1991). Prostitution, IV drug use, and sex-for-crack exchanges among serious delinquents: Risks for HIV infection. Criminology, 29(2), 221–235. Jackson, L. (2016, March). Invisible then gone: Minority women are disappearing from BigLaw—and here’s why. ABA Journal, 102(3), 36. Jackson, L. A. (2006). Women police: Gender, welfare and surveillance in the twentieth century. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Jacobs, P. (1987). How female police officers cope with a traditionally male position. Sociology and Social Research, 72(1), 4–6. Jacquet, C. O. (2016). [Review of the book Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and segregation, by Estelle Freedman]. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41(4), 1000–1001. https://doi.org/10.1086/685289 Jaffe, A. E., Steel, A. L., DiLillo, D., Messman-Moore, T. L., & Gratz, K. L. (2017). Characterizing sexual violence in intimate relationships: An examination of blame attributions and rape acknowledgment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517726972

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D. A., Telford, A., & Austin, G. (1986). The impact of police charges in incidents of wife abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 1(1), 37–49. Jaleel, R. (2013). Weapons of sex, weapons of war: Feminisms, ethnic conflict and the rise of rape and sexual violence in public international law during the 1990s. Cultural Studies, 27(1), 115– 135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2012.722302 James, J., & Meyerding, J. (1977). Early sexual experience and prostitution. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134(12), 1381–1385. James, L., Brody, D., & Hamilton, Z. (2013). Risk factors for domestic violence during pregnancy: A meta-analytic review. Violence and Victims, 28(3), 359–380. Jang, S. J., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). General strain and non-strain theories: A study of crime in emerging adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.003 Janssen, P. A., Nicholls, T. L., Kumar, R. A., Stefanakis, H., Spidel, A. L., & Simpson, E. M. (2005). Of mice and men: Will the intersection of social science and genetics create new approaches for intimate partner violence? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(1), 61–71. Janusz, L. (1991, Fall). Separate but unequal: Women behind bars in Massachusetts. Odyssey, 6–17. Javdani, S., Sadeh, N., & Verona, E. (2011). Gendered social forces: A review of the impact of institutionalized factors on women and girls’ criminal justice trajectories. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 17(2), 161–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021957

Jeffries, S., & Bond, C. E. W. (2013). Gender, indigeneity, and the criminal courts: A narrative exploration of women’s sentencing in Western Australia. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.743370 Jenne, D. L., & Kersting, R. C. (1996). Aggression and women correctional officers in male prisons. The Prison Journal, 76(4), 442–460. Jennings, W. G., Piquero, N. L., Gover, A. R., & Perez, D. M. (2009). Gender and general strain theory: A replication and exploration of Broidy and Agnew’s gender/strain hypothesis among a sample of southwestern Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(4), 404–417. Jensen, G. F., & Thompson, K. (1990). What’s class got to do with it? A further examination of power-control theory. American Journal of Sociology, 95(4), 1009–1023. Jensen, G. J., & Eve, R. (1976). Sex differences in delinquency: An examination of popular sociological explanations. Criminology, 13(4), 427–448. Joe, K. A., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). “Just every mother’s angel”: An analysis of gender and ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender & Society, 9(4), 408–431. Johnson, B. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge- and county-level influences. Criminology, 44(2), 259–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00049.x Johnson, B. D. (2018). In search of the missing link: Examining contextual variation in federal charge bargains across U.S. District Courts. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1133–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1523447

Johnson, D. E. (2014). When they tell you who you are: Lesbian resistance to the policing of multiple identities. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBTQ communities, crime, and justice (pp. 103–120). New York, NY: Springer. Johnson, H., & Bunge, V. P. (2001). Prevalence and consequences of spousal assault in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 27–45. Johnson, H., Eriksson, L., Mazerolle, P., & Wortley, R. (2017). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117701574 Johnson, H., & Rodgers, K. (1993). A statistical overview of women and crime in Canada. In E. Adelberg & C. Currie (Eds.), In conflict with the law: Women and the Canadian justice system (pp. 95– 116). Vancouver, Canada: Press Gang Publishers. Johnson, M. C., & Menard, S. (2012). A longitudinal study of delinquency abstention: Differences between life-course abstainers and offenders from adolescence into adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(3), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204011427714 Johnson, P. C. (2003). Inner lives: Voices of African American women in prison. New York: New York University Press. Johnson, R. M. (2015). Measuring the influence of juvenile arrest on the odds of four-year college enrollment for black males: An NLSY analysis. Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, 4(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.4.1.04 Johnson, S. W., Stidham, R., Carp, R. A., & Manning, K. L. (2008). The gender influence on us district court decisions: Updating the

traditional judge attribute model. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 29(4), 497–526. Johnston, D. (1995). The care and placement of prisoners’ children. In Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 103–123). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Jolin, A. (1983). Domestic violence legislation: An impact assessment. Journal of Police Science & Administration. Jones, A. (1994). Next time, she’ll be dead: Battering & how to stop it. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Jones, A. A., Dyer, T. V., Das, A., Lasopa, S. O., Striley, C. W., & Cottler, L. B. (2019). Risky sexual behaviors, substance use, and perceptions of risky behaviors among criminal justice involved women who trade sex. Journal of Drug Issues, 49(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042618795141 Jones, C. A., & Seabrook, R. L. (2017). The new Jane Crow: Mass incarceration and the denied maternity of black women. In M. Deflem (Ed.), Sociology of crime, law and deviance (Vol. 22, pp. 135–154). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620170000022011 Jones, D. A., & Belknap, J. (1999). Police responses to battering in a progressive pro-arrest jurisdiction. Justice Quarterly, 16(2), 249– 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829900094131 Jones, N. (2008). Working “the code”: On girls, gender, and innercity violence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 63–83. Jones, N. (2010). Between good and ghetto: African American girls and inner-city violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press. Jones, N. (2018). The chosen ones: Black men and the politics of redemption. Oakland: University of California Press. Jones, N. J., Brown, S. L., Wanamaker, K. A., & Greiner, L. E. (2014). A quantitative exploration of gendered pathways to crime in a sample of male and female juvenile offenders. Feminist Criminology, 9(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113501850 Jordan, C. E., Clark, J., Pritchard, A., & Charnigo, R. (2012). Lethal and other serious assaults: Disentangling gender and context. Crime & Delinquency, 58(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712436412 Jordan, C. E., Wilcox, P., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). Stalking acknowledgement and reporting among college women experiencing intrusive behaviors: Implications for the emergence of a “classic stalking case.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(5), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.008 Jordan, K. L., & McNeal, B. A. (2016). Juvenile penalty or leniency: Sentencing of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000186 Jurik, N. C. (1985). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32(4), 375–388. Jurik, N. C. (1988). Striking a balance: Female correctional officers, gender role stereotypes, and male prisons. Sociological Inquiry, 58(3), 291–305.

Jurik, N. C., & Halemba, G. J. (1984). Gender, working conditions and the job satisfaction of women in a non-traditional occupation: Female correctional officers in men’s prisons. Sociological Quarterly, 25(4), 551–566. Kaeble, D., & Cowhig, M. (2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016 (NCJ Report No. 251211). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Kaighobadi, F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Suspicions of female infidelity predict men’s partner-directed violence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3–4), 281–282. Kaiser, K. A., O’Neal, E. N., & Spohn, C. (2017). “Victim refuses to cooperate”: A focal concerns analysis of victim cooperation in sexual assault cases. Victims & Offenders, 12(2), 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1078864 Kajstura, A. (2018). States of women’s incarceration: The global context 2018. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/women/2018.html Kalof, L., Eby, K. K., Matheson, J. L., & Kroska, R. J. (2001). The influence of race and gender on student self-reports of sexual harassment by college professors. Gender & Society, 15(2), 282– 302. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004 Kanin, E. J. (1985). Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative deprivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14(3), 219–231. Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990. Kantor, G. K., & Straus, M. A. (1987). The “drunken bum” theory of wife beating. Social Problems, 34(3), 213–230. Kanuha, V. (1996). Domestic violence, racism, and the battered women’s movement in the United States. In J. L. Edleson & Z. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with battered women and their families (pp. 34–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kaplan, H. B., & Lin, C.-H. (2000). Deviant identity as a moderator of the relation between negative self-feelings and deviant behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(2), 150–177. Karandikar, S., & Gezinski, L. B. (2012). “Without us, sex workers will die like weeds”: Sex work and client violence in Kamathipura. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 19(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/097152151201900301 Katz, D. S. (1998). Perspectives on women in public-sector law. In S. Shetreet (Ed.), Women in law (pp. 75–82). Kluwer Law International. Katz, J., Tirone, V., & Schukrafft, M. (2012). Breaking up is hard to do: Psychological entrapment and women’s commitment to violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 27(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.4.455 Kaufman, J. M. (2009). Gendered responses to serious strain: The argument for a general strain theory of deviance. Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 410–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802427866

Kaukinen, C. (2004). The help-seeking strategies of female violentcrime victims: The direct and conditional effects of race and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 967–990. Kay, F., & Gorman, E. (2008). Women in the legal profession. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 299–332. Kay, H. H. (1991). The future of women law professors. Iowa Law Review, 77(1), 5–18. Kay, H. H. (2002). UC’s women law faculty. University of California Davis Law Review, 36(2), 331–406. Kay, H. H. (2004). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law. Columbia Law Review, 104(1), 1–20. Kaye, J. S., & Reddy, A. C. (2008). The progress of women lawyers at big firms: Steadied or simply studied? Fordham Law Review, 76(4), 1941–1974. Keeling, J., & van Wormer, K. (2012). Social worker interventions in situations of domestic violence: What we can learn from survivors’ personal narratives? British Journal of Social Work, 42(7), 1354– 1370. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr137 Keller, J., Mendes, K., & Ringrose, J. (2018). Speaking “unspeakable things’’: Documenting digital feminist responses to rape culture.” Journal of Gender Studies, 27(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1211511 Kelley, K. D., & Campbell, R. (2013). Moving on or dropping out: Police processing of adult sexual assault cases. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.743365

Kelley, M. S. (2003). The state-of-the-art in substance abuse programs for women in prison. In S. F. Sharp (Ed.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 119–148). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kelly, P. J., Hunter, J., Daily, E. B., & Ramaswamy, M. (2017). Challenges to Pap smear follow-up among women in the criminal justice system. Journal of Community Health, 42(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-016-0225-3 Kennedy, D. B., & Homant, R. J. (1983). Attitudes of abused women toward male and female police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(4), 391–405. Kennedy, S. C., Mennicke, A. M., Feely, M., & Tripodi, S. J. (2018). The relationship between interpersonal victimization and women’s criminal sentencing: A latent class analysis. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(3), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1441774 Kenney, J. S. (2002). Victims of crime and labeling theory: A parallel process? Deviant Behavior, 23(3), 235–265. Kerber, L. K. (1997). The meanings of citizenship. Journal of American History, 84(3), 833–854. Kernic, M. A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence against Women, 11(8), 991–1021.

Kessler, S. J. (1990). The medical construction of gender: Case management of intersexed infants. Signs, 16(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/494643 Khalifeh, H., Howard, L. M., Osborn, D., Moran, P., & Johnson, S. (2013). Violence against people with disability in England and Wales: Findings from a national cross-sectional survey. PLoS One, 8(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055952 Kijakazi, K., Brown, K. S., Charleston, D., & Runes, C. (2019). What would it take to overcome the damaging effect of structural racism and ensure a more equitable future? Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://next50.urban.org/question/structuralracism#structural-racism-promising-solutions Kim, A., Page-Shafer, K., Ruiz, J., Reyes, L., Delgado, V., Molitor, F., Katz, M., & McFarland, W. (2002). Vulnerability to HIV among women formerly incarcerated and women with incarcerated sexual partners. AIDS & Behavior, 6(3), 331-338. Kim, J., & Gray, K. A. (2008). Leave or stay? Battered women’s decision after intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(10), 1465–1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314307 Kim, K. (2012). The role of culture in theories of the intergenerational transmission of violence. Child & Family Social Work, 17(4), 395– 405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00793.x Kim, M. E. (2019). Anti-carceral feminism: The contradictions of progress and the possibilities of counter-hegemonic struggle. Affilia-Journal of Women and Social Work. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109919878276 Kim, M. E. (2020). Shifting the lens: An implementation study of a community-based and social network intervention to gender-based

violence. Violence Against Women. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219889176 King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a black feminist ideology. Signs, 14(1), 42–72. King, L. L., & Roberts, J. J. (2011). Traditional gender role and rape myth acceptance: From the countryside to the big city. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2011.536045 King, R. D. (2019). Cumulative impact: Why prison sentences have increased. Criminology, 57(1), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12197 Kirp, D. L., Yudof, M. G., & Franks, M. S. (1986). Gender justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kissel, P. J., & Katsampes, P. L. (1980). The impact of women corrections officers on the functioning of institutions housing male inmates. Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation, 4(3), 213–232. Kitsuse, J. I. (1962). Societal reaction to deviant-behavior— Problems of theory and method. Social Problems, 9(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1962.9.3.03a00060 Klarfeld, J. (2011). A striking disconnect: Marital rape law’s failure to keep up with domestic violence law. American Criminal Law Review, 48(4), 1819–1841. Kleck, G., & Sayles, S. (1990). Rape and resistance. Social Problems, 37(2), 149–162.

Klein, D. (1973). The etiology of female crime: A review of the literature. Issues in Criminology, 8(2), 3–30. Klein, D., & Kress, J. (1976). Any woman’s blues: A critical overview of women, crime, and the criminal justice system. Social Justice, 40(1–2), 34–49. Klein, H., & Chao, B. S. (1995). Sexual abuse during childhood and adolescence as predictors of HIV-related sexual risk during adulthood among female sexual partners of injection drug users. Violence against Women, 1(1), 55–76. Klein, N. (2015). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Kline, S. (1993). A profile of female offenders in state and federal prisons. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), The female offender: What does the future hold? (pp. 1–6). Laurel, MD: Author. Klitzman, R. (2016). Buying and selling human eggs: Infertility providers’ ethical and other concerns regarding egg donor agencies. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0151-z Knight, B. B. (1993). Women in prison as litigants: Prospects for post-prison futures. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(1), 91–116. Knittel, A., Ti, A., Schear, S., & Comfort, M. (2017). Evidence-based recommendations to improve reproductive healthcare for incarcerated women. International Journal of Prisoner Health; Bingley, 13(3/4), 200–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-07-20160031

Knutson, J. F., & Mehm, J. G. (1986). Transgenerational patterns of coercion in families and intimate relationships. In G. Russell (Ed.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 67–90). PMA Publishing. Koch, D. W., Lee, J., & Lee, K. (2016). Coloring the war on drugs: Arrest disparities in Black, Brown, and White. Race and Social Problems, 8(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-0169185-6 Koenig, E. J. (1978). Overview of attitudes toward women in law enforcement. Public Administration Review, 38(3), 267–275. Koester, S., & Schwartz, J. (1993). Crack, gangs, sex, and powerlessness: A view from Denver. In M. S. Ratner (Ed.), Crack pipe as pimp. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Koeppel, M. D. H., & Nobles, M. R. (2017). Understanding female gun ownership: 1973-2010. Feminist Criminology, 12(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115609416 Konda, S., Reichard, A. A., & Tiesman, H. M. (2012). Occupational injuries among US correctional officers, 1999-2008. Journal of Safety Research, 43(3), 181–186. Konopka, G. (1966). The adolescent girl in conflict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Konradi, A. (2007). Taking the stand: Rape survivors and the prosecution of rapists. Westport, CT: Praeger. Konradi, A., & Burger, T. (2000). Having the last word: An examination of rape survivors’ participation in sentencing. Violence Against Women, 6(4), 351–395.

Kota, K. K., Salazar, L. F., Culbreth, R. E., Crosby, R. A., & Jones, J. (2020). Psychosocial mediators of perceived stigma and suicidal ideation among transgender women. BMC Public Health, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8177-z Koons-Witt, B. A. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(2), 297–327. Koons-Witt, B., & Crittenden, C. (2018). Gender differences and program participation among prisoners with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(7), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1523818 Koss, M. P. (1998). Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. In M. E. Odem & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Confronting rape and sexual assault (pp. 51–69). Oxford, UK: Scholarly Resources. Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE program of restorative justice for sex crimes vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(9), 1623–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511537 Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170. Koss, M. P., & Harvey, M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., & Williamsen, K. M. (2014). Campus sexual misconduct: Restorative justice approaches to enhance

compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521500 Kothari, C. L., Rhodes, K. V., Wiley, J. A., Fink, J., Overholt, S., Dichter, M. E., Marcus, S. C., & Cerulli, C. (2012). Protection orders protect against assault and injury: A longitudinal study of police-involved women victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2845–2868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438284 Krabill, J. J., & Aday, R. H. (2007). Exploring the social world of aging female prisoners. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v17n01_02 Kraska, P. B., & Kappeler, V. E. (1995). To serve and pursue: Exploring police sexual violence against women. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 85. Krakauer, L., & Chen, C. P. (2003). Gender barriers in the legal profession: Implications for career development of female law students. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40(2), 65–79. Krebs, C., Breiding, M. J., Browne, A., & Warner, T. (2011). The association between different types of intimate partner violence experienced by women. Journal of Family Violence, 26(6), 487– 500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9383-3 Kremer, K. P., & Vaughn, M. G. (2019). College aspirations among incarcerated juvenile offenders: The importance of maternal education and neglect. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 17(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204018821416 Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2010). Eldercide: A gendered examination of elderly homicide in the United States, 2000-2005. Homicide Studies, 14(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767909352736

Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2018). An examination of intimate partner sexual violence: Comparing marital and nonmarital incidents employing NIBRS data, 2008-2012. Partner Abuse, 9(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.9.1.41 Krimmel, K. (2019). Rights by fortune or fight? Reexamining the addition of sex to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 271–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12225 Krisberg, B., & Schwartz, I. (1983). Rethinking juvenile justice. Crime & Delinquency, 29(3), 333–364. Krohn, M. D., Curry, J. P., & Nelson-Kilger, S. (1983). Is chivalry dead? An analysis of changes in police dispositions of males and females. Criminology, 21(3), 417–437. Krulewitch, C. J. (2009). Epidemiology of intimate partner homicidesuicide events among women of childbearing age in Maryland, 1994-2003. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 30(4), 362–365. Kruttschnitt, C. (1981). Social status and sentences of female offenders. Law & Society Review, 15(2), 247–265. Kruttschnitt, C. (1982). Women, crime, and dependency: An application of the theory of law. Criminology, 19(4), 495–513. Kruttschnitt, C. (1984). Sex and criminal court dispositions: The unresolved controversy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(3), 213–232. Kruttschnitt, C. (1996). Contributions of quantitative methods to the study of gender and crime, or bootstrapping our way into the

theoretical thicket. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12(2), 135–161. Kruttschnitt, C., Gartner, R., & Hussemann, J. (2008). Female violent offenders: Moral panics or more serious offenders? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 9–35. Kruttschnitt, C., Gartner, R., & Miller, A. (2000). Doing her own time? Women’s responses to prison in the context of the old and the new penology. Criminology, 38(3), 681–717. Kruttschnitt, C., & Green, D. E. (1984). The sex-sanctioning issue: Is it history? American Sociological Review, 49(4), 541–551. Kruttschnitt, C., & Hussemann, J. (2008). Micropolitics of race and ethnicity in women’s prisons in two political contexts. British Journal of Sociology, 59(4), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00216.x Kruttschnitt, C., & McCarthy, D. (1985). Familial social control and pretrial sanctions: Does sex really matter? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76(1), 151–175. Kubiak, S. P., Brenner, H. J., Bybee, D., Campbell, R., Cummings, C. E., Darcy, K. M., Fedock, G., & Goodman-Williams, R. (2017). Sexual misconduct in prison: What factors affect whether incarcerated women will report abuses committed by prison staff? Law and Human Behavior, 41(4), 361–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000239 Kugler, M. B., & Strahilevitz, L. J. (2019). Assessing the empirical upside of personalized criminal procedure. University of Chicago Law Review, 86(2), 489–526.

Kuhns, J. B., Blevins, K. R., Bolin, R. M., & Cambareri, J. F. (2017). Drug use and abuse as primary motivators for involvement in burglary. Journal of Drug Issues, 47(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042616678613 Kuo, C. C., Rosen, R. K., Zlotnick, C., Wechsberg, W. M., Peabody, M., & Johnson, J. E. (2019). Sexual health prevention for incarcerated women: Eroticising safe sex during re-entry to the community. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 45(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2017-200024 Kupchik, A., & Harvey, A. (2007). Court context and discrimination: Exploring biases across juvenile and criminal courts. Sociological Perspectives, 50(3), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2007.50.3.417 Kupers, T. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 713– 724. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20105 Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Juvenility and punishment: Sentencing juveniles in adult criminal court. Criminology, 48(3), 725–758. Kurtz, D. L., Linnemann, T., & Williams, L. S. (2012). Reinventing the matron: The continued importance of gendered images and division of labor in modern policing. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 239–263. Kurtz, D. L., & Upton, L. L. (2018). The gender in stories: how war stories and police narratives shape masculine police culture. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(4), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1294132 Kutner, M. (2016, February 12). The underground networks that hid children decades ago still exist. Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/sage-isaac-cook-faye-ku-parentalabduction-426110 Kwarteng-Amaning, V., Svoboda, J., Bachynsky, N., & Linthicum, L. (2019). An alternative to mother and infants behind bars: How one prison nursery program impacted attachment and nurturing for mothers who gave birth while incarcerated. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 33(2), 116–125. Kyriakakis, S., Dawson, B. A., & Edmond, T. (2012). Mexican immigrant survivors of intimate partner violence: Conceptualization and descriptions of abuse. Violence and Victims; New York, 27(4), 548–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.4.548 Lacey, K. K. (2010). When is it enough for me to leave? Black and Hispanic women’s response to violent relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896010-9326-4 Lacey, K. K., Saunders, D. G., & Zhang, L. (2011). A comparison of women of color and non-Hispanic white women on factors related to leaving a violent relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 1036–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510376496 LaFree, G. (1989). Rape and criminal justice: The social construction of sexual assault. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lafree, G. D., Reskin, B. F., & Visher, C. A. (1985). Jurors’ responses to victims’ behavior and legal issues in sexual assault trials. Social Problems, 32(4), 389–407. Lageson, S. E., McElrath, S., & Palmer, K. E. (2019). Gendered public support for criminalizing “revenge porn.” Feminist Criminology, 14(5), 560–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118773398

LaGrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27(4), 697–719. LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37(1), 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00479.x Laidler, K. J., & Hunt, G. (2001). Accomplishing femininity among the girls in the gang. British Journal of Criminology, 41(4), 656–678. Lake, E. S. (1993). An exploration of the violent victim experiences of female offenders. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 41–51. Lally, W., & DeMaris, A. (2012). Gender and relational-distance effects in arrests for domestic violence. Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 103–123. Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Altheimer, I., Jiang, S., & Stevenson, M. T. (2010). The relationship between burnout and support for punishment and treatment: A preliminary examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(6), 1004–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x09348585 Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Jiang, S., Elechi, O. O., Benjamin, B., Morris, A., Laux, J. M., & Dupuy, P. (2010). The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and correctional life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.11.002 Lambert, E. G., Kim, B., Keena, L. D., & Cheeseman, K. (2017). Testing a gendered models of job satisfaction and work stress

among correctional officers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2015.1074092 Lambert, E. G., Smith, B., Geistman, J., Cluse-Tolar, T., & Jiang, S. (2013). Do men and women differ in their perceptions of stalking: An exploratory study among college students. Violence and Victims; New York, 28(2), 195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/08866708.09-201 Lane, J., & Fox, K. A. (2013). Fear of property, violent, and gang crime: Examining the shadow of sexual assault thesis among male and female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 472– 496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812463564 Lane, K. E., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6(1), 45–59. Lange, E., & Young, S. (2019). Gender-based violence as difficult knowledge: Pedagogies for rebalancing the masculine and the feminine. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 38(3), 301– 326. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1597932 Langford, L., Isaac, N., & Kabat, S. (1998). Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts: Examining case ascertainment and validity of the SHR. Homicide Studies, 2(4), 353–377. Langford, L., Isaac, N., & Kabat, S. (1998). Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts: Examining case ascertainment and validity of the SHR. Homicide Studies, 2(4), 353–377. Langton, L., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select white-collar offenses.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.11.011 Larance, L. Y., Goodmark, L., Miller, S. L., & Dasgupta, S. D. (2019). Understanding and addressing women’s use of force in intimate relationships: A retrospective. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218815776 Larance, L. Y., & Miller, S. L. (2017). In her own words: Women describe their use of force resulting in court-ordered intervention. Violence Against Women, 23(12), 1536–1559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216662340 Larsen, M.-L., Hilden, M., & Lidegaard, Ø. (2015). Sexual assault: A descriptive study of 2500 female victims over a 10-year period. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 122(4), 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.1309 Larsen, S. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (2015). Men’s and women’s experience of IPV Part II: A review of new developments in comparative studies in clinical populations. Journal of Family Violence, 30(8), 1007–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-0159730-x Larson, M., & Sweeten, G. (2012). Breaking up is hard to do: Romantic dissolution, offending, and substance use during the transition to adulthood. Criminology, 50(3), 605–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00272.x Laster, K., & Douglas, R. (1995). Feminized justice: The impact of women decision makers in the lower courts in Australia. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 177–205. Lathan, E., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Duncan, J., & Stefurak, J. T. (2019). The Promise Initiative: Promoting a trauma-informed police response to sexual assault in a mid-size Southern community.

Journal of Community Psychology, 47(7), 1733–1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22223 Laub, J. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1993). Violent criminal behavior over the life course: A review of the longitudinal and comparative research. Violence and Victims, 8(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.8.3.235 Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63(2), 225–238. Laub, J. H., & Smith, J. S. (1995). Eleanor Touroff Glueck: An unsung pioneer in criminology. Women & Criminal Justice Women & Criminal Justice, 6(2), 1–22. Lauderback, D., Hansen, J., & Waldorf, D. (1992). Sisters are doin’it for themselves: A black female gang in San Francisco. The Gang Journal, 1(1), 57–70. Lauritsen, J. L. (1993). Sibling resemblance in juvenile delinquency: Findings from the National Youth Survey. Criminology, 31(3), 387– 409. Lauritsen, J. L., & Heimer, K. (2008). The gender gap in violent victimization, 1973-2004. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 125–147. Lauritsen, J. L., Heimer, K., & Lynch, J. P. (2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminology, 47(2), 361–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00149.x LaVene, M. C., White, M. C., Waters, C. M., & Tulsky, J. P. (2003). Screening for health conditions in a county jail: Differences by

gender. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 9(4), 381–396. Lawrence, R., & Marian, S. (1998). Women corrections officers in men’s prisons: Acceptance and perceived job performance. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(3), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v09n03_03 Lawrenz, F., Lembo, J. F., & Schade, T. (1988). Time series analysis of the effect of a domestic violence directive on the number of arrests per day. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16(6), 493–498. Law School Admission Council. (2013). LSAC resources. Newtown, PA: Author. http://www.lsac.org/lsaresources/default.asp Laws, J. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287213 Lawson, W. T., Jr., & Fawkes, L. S. (1993). HIV, AIDS, and the female offender. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), Female offenders: Meeting needs of a neglected population (pp. 43–48). Laurel, MD: Author. Lawyer, S., Resnick, H., Bakanic, V., Burkett, T., & Kilpatrick, D. (2010). Forcible, drug-facilitated, and incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal of American College Health, 58(5), 453–460. Leach, L. S., Butterworth, P., Olesen, S. C., & Mackinnon, A. (2013). Relationship quality and levels of depression and anxiety in a large population-based survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(3), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127012-0559-9 LeBeau, M., Andollo, W., Hearn, W. L., Baselt, R., Cone, E., Finkle, B., Fraser, D., Jenkins, A., Mayer, J., Negrusz, A., Poklis, A.,

Walls, C., Raymon, L., Robertson, M., & Saady, J. (1999). Recommendations for toxicological investigations of drugfacilitated sexual assaults. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(1), 227–230. Lederman, C. S., & Brown, E. N. (2000). Entangled in the shadows: Girls in the juvenile justice system. Buffalo Law Review, 48(3), 909–925. Ledoux, J. C., & Hazelwood, R. R. (1985). Police attitudes and beliefs toward rape. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13(3), 211–220. Lee, J. S., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Hong, S. (2017). Effects of formal and informal deviant labels in adolescence on crime in adulthood. Social Work Research, 41(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svx003 Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. D. (2017). Sentencing transferred juveniles in the adult criminal court: The direct and interactive effects of race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016678048 Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. D. (2018). Juveniles on trial: Mode of conviction and the adult court sentencing of transferred juveniles. Crime & Delinquency, 64(5), 563–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717714203 Lehmann, P. S., Pickett, J. T., Ryon, S. B., & Kosloski, A. E. (2019). Race, juvenile transfer, and sentencing preferences: Findings from a randomized experiment. Race and Justice, 9(3), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717699674 Leiber, M. J., Beaudry-Cyr, M., Peck, J. H., & Mack, K. Y. (2018). Sentencing Recommendations by probation officers and judges:

An examination of adult offenders across gender. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(2), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1297279 Leiber, M. J., Brubaker, S. J., & Fox, K. C. (2009). A closer look at the individual and joint effects of gender and race on juvenile justice decision making. Feminist Criminology, 4(4), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109338564 Leiber, M. J., & Mack, K. Y. (2003). The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decisionmaking. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 34–70. Leigey, M. E., & Hodge, J. P. (2012). Gray matters: Gender differences in the physical and mental health of older inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(4), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.716358 Leigey, M. E., & Reed, K. L. (2010). A woman’s life before serving life: Examining the negative pre-incarceration life events of female life-sentenced inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(4), 302– 322. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2010.512229 Leisenring, A. (2006). Confronting “victim” discourses: The identity work of battered women. Symbolic Interaction, 29(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2006.29.3.307 Leisenring, A. (2011). “Whoa! They could’ve arrested me!” Unsuccessful identity claims of women during police response to intimate partner violence. Qualitative Sociology, 34(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9190-4 Lekkerkerker, E. C. (1931). Reformatories for women in the United States. Groningen, Netherlands: Wolters.

Lemieux, C. M., Barthelemy, J. J., Schroeder, J. A., & Thomas, J. M. (2012). Therapeutic communities for youths in secure care: Participant characteristics and predictors of treatment and postrelease supervision. Journal of Social Service Research, 38(4), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2012.683719 Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lenox, M. L. (2011). Neutralizing the gendered collateral consequences of the war on drugs. New York University Law Review, 86(1), 280–315. Leonard, E. B. (1982). Women, crime, and society: A critique of theoretical criminology. New York, NY: Longman. Leonard, E. B. (1983). Judicial decisions and prison reform: The impact of litigation on women prisoners. Social Problems, 31(1), 45–58. Leonard, E. B. (2015). Crime, inequality, and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Lerman, A. E., & Page, J. (2012). The state of the job: An embedded work role perspective on prison officer attitudes. Punishment & Society, 14(5), 503–529. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051. LeSuer, W. (2020). An international study of the contextual effects of gender inequality on intimate partner sexual violence against women students. Feminist Criminology, 15(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085119842652

Levendosky, A. A., Lynch, S., & Graham-Bermann, S. (2000). Mothers’ perceptions of the impact of woman abuse on their parenting. Violence Against Women, 6(3), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181831 Levenson, J. S., & Willis, G. M. (2019). Implementing traumainformed care in correctional treatment and supervision. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(4), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1531959 Levin, D. (2016, May 24). Dozens of women vanish on Canada’s Highway of Tears, and most cases are unsolved. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/world/americas/canadaindigenous-women-highway-16.html Levine, E. C. (2018). Sexual scripts and criminal statutes: Gender restrictions, spousal allowances, and victim accountability after rape law reform. Violence Against Women, 24(3), 322–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216687876 Lev-Ran, S., Imtiaz, S., Taylor, B. J., Shield, K. D., Rehm, J., & Le Foll, B. (2012). Gender differences in health-related quality of life among cannabis users: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 123(1–3), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.11.010 Lewis, C. (2006). Treating incarcerated women: Gender matters. Psychiatric Clinics, 29(3), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2006.04.013 Lewis, D. K. (1981). Black women offenders and criminal justice. In M. Q. Warren (Ed.), Comparing female and male offenders (pp. 89–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Li, X., Stanton, B., Cottrell, L., Burns, J., Pack, R., & Kaljee, L. (2001). Patterns of initiation of sex and drug-related activities among urban low-income African-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(1), 46–54. Lichtenstein, B. (1997). Women and crack-cocaine use: A study of social networks and HIV risk in an Alabama jail sample. Addiction Research, 5(4), 279–296. Lichtenstein, B., & Johnson, I. M. (2009). Older African American women and barriers to reporting domestic violence to law enforcement in the rural Deep South. Women and Criminal Justice, 19(4), 286–305. Lichty, L. F., & Campbell, R. (2012). Targets and witnesses: Middle school students’ sexual harassment experiences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(3), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610396090 Liebenberg, R. D., & Scharf, S. A. (2019). Walking out the door: The facts, figures, and future of experienced women lawyers in private practice. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Liebler, C. M. (2010). Me(di)a culpa? The “missing white woman syndrome” and media self-critique. Communication, Culture and Critique, 3(4), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17539137.2010.01085.x Liem, M., & Roberts, D. W. (2009). Intimate partner homicide by presence or absence of a self-destructive act. Homicide Studies, 13(4), 339–354. Light, M. T., & Miller, T. (2018). Does undocumented immigration increase violent crime? Criminology, 56(2), 370–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12175

Lim, G. Y., & Roloff, M. E. (1999). Attributing sexual consent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365520 Lin, J., Grattet, R., & Petersilia, J. (2010). “Back-end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759–795. Lindom, T., Gregory, C., & Johnson, T. R. (2017). Gender dynamics and Supreme Court oral arguments. Michigan State Law Review, 2017(5), 1033–1056. Liptak, A. (2020, June 15). Civil rights law protects L.G.B.T. workers, Supreme Court rules. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workerssupreme-court.html Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False allegations of sexual assualt: An analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1318–1334. Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. T. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37(11), 1264–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010 Littleton, H., Breitkopf, C. R., & Berenson, A. (2008). Beyond the campus: Unacknowledged rape among low-income women. Violence Against Women, 14(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207313733 Littleton, H., Grills, A., Layh, M., & Rudolph, K. (2017). Unacknowledged rape and re-victimization risk: Examination of potential mediators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(4), 437– 450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720187

Littleton, H., Grills-Taquechel, A., & Axsom, D. (2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and postassault experiences. Violence and Victims, 24(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.4.439 Littleton, H., & Henderson, C. E. (2009). If she is not a victim does that mean she was not traumatized? Evaluation of predictors of PTSD symptomatology among college rape victims. Violence Against Women, 15(2), 148–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208329386 Littleton, H., Tabernik, H., Canales, E. J., & Backstrom, T. (2009). Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles, 60(11– 12), 793–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9586-8 Liu, J. (2009). Asian criminology: Challenges, opportunities, and directions. Asian Journal of Criminology, 4(1), 1–9. Liu, R. X. (2004). Parent-youth conflict and school delinquency/cigarette use: The moderating effects of gender and associations with achievement-oriented peers. Sociological Inquiry, 74(2), 271–297. Livingston, J. D. (2016). Contact between police and people with mental disorders: A review of rates. Psychiatric Services, 67(8), 850–857. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500312 Lo, C. C. (2004). Sociodemographic factors, drug abuse, and other crimes: How they vary among male and female arrestees. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(5), 399–409. Lockwood, D., & Prohaska, A. (2015). Police officer gender and attitudes toward intimate partner violence: How policy can eliminate stereotypes. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 10(1), 77–90.

Loeber, R. (1996). Developmental continuity, change, and pathways in male juvenile problem behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 737–762. Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410. Logan, T. K. (2017). “If i can’t have you nobody will”: Explicit threats in the context of coercive control. Violence and Victims, 32(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00187 Logan, T. K. (2019, December 2). Examining stalking experiences and outcomes for men and women stalked by (ex)partners and non-partners. Journal of Family Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00111-w Logan, T. K., & Cole, J. (2007). The impact of partner stalking on mental health and protective order outcomes over time. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 546–562. Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2005). Protective orders in rural and urban areas: A multiple perspective study. Violence Against Women, 11(7), 876–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205276985 Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Hunt, G. (2009). Understanding human trafficking in the United States. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(1), 3–30.

Logue, M. A. (2011). Downward departures in US federal courts: Do family ties, sex, and race/ethnicity matter? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(4), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2010.487568 Løkkegaard, S. S., Hansen, N. B., Wolf, N. M., & Elklit, A. (2019). When daddy stalks mommy: Experiences of intimate partner stalking and involvement of social and legal authorities when stalker and victim have children together. Violence Against Women, 25(14), 1759–1777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219826738 Lombroso, C. (2006). Criminal man (N. H. Rafter & M. Gibson, Trans.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Original work published 1876–1897) Lombroso, C., & Ferrero, W. (2004). Criminal woman, the prostitute, and the normal woman (N. H. Rafter & M. Gibson, Trans.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Original work published 1895) Long, L. M. (2018). Rape victim advocates experiences with law enforcement in the emergency room. Feminist Criminology, 13(5), 498–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116687033 Longobardi, C., & Badenes-Ribera, L. (2017). Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships and the role of sexual minority stressors: A systematic review of the past 10 years. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2039–2049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0734-4 Lonsway, K. A., & Alipio, A. M. (2008). Sex discrimination lawsuits in law enforcement: A case study of thirteen female officers who sued their agencies. Women & Criminal Justice, 18(4), 63–103.

Lonsway, K. A., Paynich, R., & Hall, J. N. (2013). Sexual harassment in law enforcement: Incidence, Impact, and Perception. Police Quarterly, 16(2), 177–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611113475630 Loper, A. B. (2006). How do mothers in prison differ from nonmothers? Journal of Child & Family Studies, 15(1), 83–95. Lopez, V. (2017). Complicated lives: Girls, parents, drugs, and juvenile justice. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Lopez, V., Jurik, N., & Gilliard-Matthews, S. (2009). Gender, sexuality, power and drug acquisition strategies among adolescent girls who use meth. Feminist Criminology, 4(3), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085109332455 Lopez, V., & Pasko, L. (2017). Bringing Latinas to the forefront: Latina girls, women, and the justice system. Feminist Criminology, 12(3), 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117703235 Lopez, V., & Russell, M. (2008). Examining the predictors of juvenile probation officers’ rehabilitation orientation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 381–388. López-Garza, M. (2016). Formerly Incarcerated Women Speak Out. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 27(2), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2016.1155248 Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lorde, A. (1981). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In C. Moraga & G. Anzaldúa (Eds.), This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color (pp. 98–101). Watertown, MA: Persephone Press.

Lorenc, T., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., Neary, D., Clayton, S., Wright, K., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A., & Renton, A. (2013). Fear of crime and the environment: Systematic review of UK qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health, 13, Article 496. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-496 Lord, V. B., & Rassel, G. (2000). Law enforcement’s response to sexual assault: A comparative study of nine counties in North Carolina. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v11n01_04 Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs, 8(2), 296– 319. Loukas, A., Ripperger-Suhler, K. G., & Horton, K. D. (2009). Examining temporal associations between school connectedness and early adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(6), 804–812. Love, A., & Kelly, K. (2011). Equity or essentialism? U.S. courts and the legitimation of girls’ teams in high school sport. Gender & Society, 25(2), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211398866 Love, S. R., & Park, S. min. (2013). Images of gender twenty years later: A content analysis of images in introductory criminal justice and criminology textbooks. Feminist Criminology, 8(4), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113492993 Lovell, R. E., Collins, C. C., McGuire, M. J., Overman, L. T., Luminais, M. N., & Flannery, D. J. (2019). Understanding intimate partner sexual assaults: Findings from sexual assault kits. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1494234

Lowery, P. G. (2019a). The independent and joint effects of race, crime, and social location on the dispositional decisions of juvenile girls. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 17(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2019.1575780 Loving, N. (1980). Responding to spouse abuse and wife beating. Police Executive Research Forum. Lowery, P. G. (2019b). Plea bargains among serious and violent girls: An intersectional approach exploring race in the juvenile court. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117720724 Lucashenko, M. (1996). Violence against Indigenous women: Public and private dimensions. Violence Against Women, 2(4), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801296002004003 Lucchesi, A. H. (2019). Mapping geographies of Canadian colonial occupation: Pathway analysis of murdered indigenous women and girls. Gender, Place & Culture, 26(6), 868–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1553864 Lucie, P. (1988). Discrimination against males in the USA. In S. McLean & N. Burrows (Eds.), The legal relevance of gender (pp. 216–243). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Luke, K. P. (2002). Mitigating the ill effects of maternal incarceration on women in prison and their children. Child Welfare, 81(6), 929– 948. Lund, L. E., & Smorodinsky, S. (2001). Violent death among intimate partners: A comparison of homicide and homicide followed by suicide in California. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(4), 451–459.

Lundman, R. J. (2009). Officer gender and traffic ticket decisions: Police blue or women too? Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(4), 342– 352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.06.002 Luo, X. I., Schleifer, C., & Hill, C. M. (2019). Police income and occupational gender inequality. Police Quarterly, 22(4), 481–510. Luthar, S. S., & D’Avanzo, K. (1999). Contextual factors in substance use: A study of suburban and inner-city adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 11(4), 845–867. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579499002357 Lynch, M. (2012). Theorizing the role of the “war on drugs” in US punishment. Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480612441700 Lynch, M. J. (2018). Acknowledging female victims of green crimes: Environmental exposure of women to industrial pollutants. Feminist Criminology, 13(4), 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116673172 Lynch, M. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). A primer in radical criminology (2nd ed.). Anglesea, Australia: Harrow & Heston. Lynch, S. M., DeHart, D. D., Belknap, J. E., Green, B. L., DassBrailsford, P., Johnson, K. A., & Whalley, E. (2014). A multisite study of the prevalence of serious mental illness, PTSD, and substance use disorders of women in jail. Psychiatric Services, 65(5), 670–674. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300172 Lynch, S. M., DeHart, D. D., Belknap, J., Green, B. L., DassBrailsford, P., Johnson, K. M., & Wong, M. M. (2017). An examination of the associations among victimization, mental health, and offending in women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(6), 796–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817704452

Lynch, S. M., Fritch, A., & Heath, N. M. (2012). Looking beneath the surface: The nature of incarcerated women’s experiences of interpersonal violence, treatment needs, and mental health. Feminist Criminology, 7(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085112439224 Mack, A. N., & McCann, B. J. (2018). Critiquing state and gendered violence in the age of #MeToo. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 104(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2018.1479144 Mack, K. W. (2002). A social history of everyday practice: Sadie T.M. Alexander and the incorporation of black women into the American legal profession, 1925-1960. Cornell Law Review, 87, 1405–1474. Mack, K. Y., & Leiber, M. J. (2005). Race, gender, single-mother households, and delinquency: A further test of power-control theory. Youth & Society, 37(2), 115–144. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacKinnon, C. A. (1990). Legal perspectives on sexual difference. In Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 213–225). New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Madriz, E. (1997). Nothing bad happens to good girls: Fear of crime in women’s lives. Oakland: University of California Press. Maeve, M. K. (1998). Methodologic issues in qualitative research with incarcerated women. Family & Community Health, 21(3), 1– 15. Maeve, M. K. (1999a). Adjudicated health: Incarcerated women and the social construction of health. Crime Law and Social Change, 31(1), 49–71.

Maeve, M. K. (1999b). The social construction of love and sexuality in a women’s prison. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(3), 46–65. Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Newman, D. L., Fagan, J., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022006x.65.1.68 Mahan, S. (1984). Imposition of despair—An ethnography of women in prison. Justice Quarterly, 1(3), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828400088211 Maher, L. (1995). In the name of love: Women and initiation to illicit drugs. In R. E. Dobash, R. Dobash, & L. Noaks (Eds.), Gender and crime (pp. 132–166). Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press. Maher, L. (1997). Sexed work: Gender, race, and resistance in a Brooklyn drug market. New York, NY: Clarendon Press. Maher, L. (2000). Sexed work: Gender, race and resistance in a Brooklyn drug market. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Maher, L. (2004). A reserve army: Women and the drug market. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 127–146). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Maher, L., & Curtis, R. (1992). Women on the edge of crime: Crack cocaine and the changing contexts of street-level sex work in New York City. Crime, Law and Social Change, 18(3), 221–258. Maher, L., & Daly, K. (1996). Women in the street-level drug economy: Continuity or change? Criminology, 34(4), 465–491.

Maher, L., Dunlap, E., Johnson, B. D., & Hamid, A. (1996). Gender, power, and alternative living arrangements in the inner-city crack culture. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(2), 181–205. Mahoney, A. R. (1987). Women jurors: Sexism in jury selection. In L. L. Crites & W. L. Hepperle (Eds.), Women, the courts, and equality (pp. 208–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Mahoney, M. R. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90(1), 1–94. Mahoney, P. (1999). High rape chronicity and low rates of helpseeking among wife rape survivors in a nonclinical sample: Implications for research and practice. Violence Against Women, 5(9), 993–1016. Majka, L. C. (1991). Sexual harassment in the church. Society, 28(4), 14–21. Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35(3), 383–388. Malacrida, C. (2006). Contested memories: Efforts of the powerful to silence former inmates’ histories of life in an institution for “mental defectives.” Disability & Society, 21(5), 397–410. Mallett, C. A., Quinn, L. M., & Stoddard-Dare, P. (2012). Significant gender differences in factors related to the detention of youthful offenders. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.716694 Mann, C. R. (1984). Female crime and delinquency. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Maran, D. A., & Varetto, A. (2017). Motives to report stalking cases to the police: A comparison between a large city and a small town in Italy. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(5), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2016.1270380 Marcus, R. F. (2009). Cross-sectional study of violence in emerging adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 35(2), 188–202. Marder, N. S. (2002). Juries, justice & multiculturalism. Southern California Law Review, 75(3), 659–726. Mariano, T. Y., Chan, H. C., & Myers, W. C. (2014). Toward a more holistic understanding of filicide: A multidisciplinary analysis of 32 years of US arrest data. Forensic Science International, 236, 46– 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.019 Marier, C. J., Cochran, J. K., Smith, M. D., Fogel, S. J., & Bjerregaard, B. (2018). Victim age and capital sentencing outcomes in North Carolina (1977–2009). Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1404464 Mars, J. R. (2002). Coramae Richey Mann on women, crime and the color of American justice. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(1), 1–25. Marshall, P. (1973). Policewomen on patrol. Manpower, 5(10), 14– 20. Martin, C. A. (1983). Women police and stress. Police Chief, 50, 106–109. Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. Glide Publications.

Martin, D. (2007, January 10). Jane Bolin, the country’s first Black woman to become a judge, is dead at 98. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/obituaries/10bolin.html Martin, E. (2009). US women federal court judges appointed by President Carter. Feminist Legal Studies, 17(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-009-9109-6 Martin, M. E. (1997). Double your trouble: Dual arrest in family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12(2), 139–157. Martin, P. Y., & Hummer, R. A. (1998). Fraternities and rape on campus. In M. E. Odem & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Confronting rape and sexual assault (pp. 165–180). Scholarly Resources. Martin, S. E. (1979). Police women and police women: Occupational role dilemmas and choices of female officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7(3), 314–323. Martin, S. E. (1980). Breaking and entering: Policewomen on patrol. Oakland: University of California Press. Martin, S. E. (1990). On the move: The status of women in policing. Police Foundation. Martin, S. E. (1992). The changing status of women officers. In I. L. Moyer (Ed.), The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system (2nd ed., pp. 281–305). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Martin, S. E. (1994). “Outsider within” the station house: The impact of race and gender on black women police. Social Problems, 41(3), 383–400.

Martin, S. E. (2004). The interactive effects of race and sex on women police officers. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 527–541). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Martin, S. E., & Jurik, N. C. (1996). Doing justice, doing gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Martin, S. L., Ray, N., Sotres-Alvarez, D., Kupper, L. L., Moracco, K. E., Dickens, P. A., Scandlin, D., & Gizlice, Z. (2006). Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women, 12(9), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206292672 Martin, S. L., Rieger, R. H., Kupper, L. L., Meyer, R. E., & Qaqish, B. F. (1997). The effect of incarceration during pregnancy on birth outcomes. Public Health Reports, 112(4), 340–346. Martinez, B. P., Petersen, N., & Omori, M. (2019). Time, money, and punishment: Institutional racial-ethnic inequalities in pretrial detention and case outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 001112871988160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719881600 Martinez, M. (2018). From the subjected subject to the vulnerable subject: An unfinished discussion in contemporary Spanish feminisms. Signs, 43(2), 327–351. Martinez-Merino, N., ín-González, N., Usabiaga, O., & MartosGarcia, D. (2017). Physical activity practiced by incarcerated women: A systematic review. Health Care for Women International, 38(11), 1152–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2017.1368515 Martín-Fernández, M., Gracia, E., & Lila, M. (2018). Assessing victim-blaming attitudes in cases of intimate partner violence against women: Development and validation of the VB-IPVAW

Scale. Psychosocial Intervention, 27(3), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2018a18 Martino, S. C., Ellickson, P. L., Klein, D. J., & McCaffrey, D. (2008). Multiple trajectories of physical aggression among adolescent boys and girls. Aggressive Behavior, 34(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20215 Maschke, K. J. (1996). Gender in the prison setting: The privacyequal employment dilemma. Women & Criminal Justice, 7(2), 23– 42. Mason, W. A., Hitchings, J. E., & Spoth, R. L. (2007). Emergence of delinquency and depressed mood throughout adolescence as predictors of late adolescent problem substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(1), 13–24. Mason, W. A., & Windle, M. (2002). Gender, self-control, and informal social control in adolescence: A test of three models of the continuity of delinquent behavior. Youth & Society, 33(4), 479– 514. Massoglia, M., Pare, P.-P., Schnittker, J., & Gagnon, A. (2014). The relationship between incarceration and premature adult mortality: Gender specific evidence. Social Science Research, 46, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.03.002 Mastrofski, S. D., Worden, R. E., & Snipes, J. B. (1995). Law enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology, 33(4), 539–563. Matejkowski, J., Draine, J., Solomon, P., & Salzer, M. S. (2011). Mental illness, criminal risk factors and parole release decisions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4), 528–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.991

Matsuda, M. J. (1989). When the first quail calls: Multiple consciousness as jurisprudential method. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 11(1), 7–10. Matthews, N. A. (1989). Surmounting a legacy: The expansion of racial diversity in a local anti-rape movement. Gender & Society, 3(4), 518–532. Matthews, N. A. (1993). Surmounting a legacy: The expansion of racial diversity in a local anti-rape movement. In P. B. Bart & E. Moran (Eds.), Violence against women: The bloody footprints (pp. 177–192). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Mattocks, K. M., Sadler, A., Yano, E. M., Krebs, E. E., Zephyrin, L., Brandt, C., Kimerling, R., Sandfort, T., Dichter, M. E., Weiss, J. J., Allison, J., & Haskell, S. (2013). Sexual victimization, health status, and VA healthcare utilization among lesbian and bisexual OEF/OIF veterans. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(S2), 604–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2357-9 Matusiak, R. E., & Matusiak, M. C. (2018). Structure and function: Impact on employment of women in law enforcement. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(4), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1454876 Maume, M. O., Lanier, C., & DeVall, K. (2018). The effect of treatment completion on recidivism among TASC program clients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(15), 4776–4795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18780421 Mawby, R. (1980). Sex and crime: The results of a self-report study. British Journal of Sociology, 31(4), 525–543. Mawby, R. I. (1982). Women in prison: A British study. Crime & Delinquency, 28(1), 24–39.

Maxwell, C., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: New evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Mayers, L. (2019). (Re)making a politics of protection in immigration policy: The “criminal alien,” gendered vulnerability, and the management of risk. Citizenship Studies, 23(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1561828 McCall, M. (2005). Court decision making in police brutality cases, 1990-2000. American Politics Research, 33(1), 56–80. McCammon, H. J. (2012). The U.S. women’s jury movements and strategic adaptation: A more just verdict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, B., Hagan, J., & Woodward, T. S. (1999). In the company of women: Structure and agency in a revised power-control theory of gender and delinquency. Criminology, 37(4), 761–788. McCarthy, B. R. (1980). Inmate mothers: The problems of separation and reintegration. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 4(3), 199–212. McCarthy, B. R. (1987). Preventive detention and pretrial custody in the juvenile court. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15(3), 185–200. McCauley, H. L., Campbell, R., Buchanan, N. T., & Moylan, C. A. (2019). Advancing theory, methods, and dissemination in sexual violence research to build a more equitable future: an intersectional, community-engaged approach. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 1906–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875823

McClellan, D. S. (1994). Disparity in the discipline of male and female inmates in Texas prisons. Women & Criminal Justice, 5(2), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v05n02_05 McCloskey, K., & Grigsby, N. (2005). The ubiquitous clinical problem of adult intimate partner violence: The need for routine assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(3), 264–275. McCord, J., & Otten, L. (1983). A consideration of sex roles and motivations for crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(1), 3–12. McCorkel, J. A. (2013). Breaking women: Gender, race, and the new politics of imprisonment. New York: New York University Press. McDaniel, C. B. (2007). “Fearing I shall not do my duty to race if I remain silent”: Law and its call to African American women, 18721932 (Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University). McDaniels-Wilson, C., & Belknap, J. (2008). The extensive sexual violation and sexual abuse histories of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14(10), 1090–1127. McDermott, M. J., & Blackstone, S. J. (2001). Lilith in myth, melodrama, and criminology. Women & Criminal Justice, 13, 85– 98. McDiarmid, J. (2019). Highway of Tears: A true story of racism, indifference and the pursuit of justice for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. New York, NY: Atria Books. McDonald, C. (2012). The social context of woman-to-woman intimate partner abuse (WWIPA). Journal of Family Violence, 27(7), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9455-z

McDonald, H. (2013, February 5). Ireland finally admits state collusion in Magdalene Laundry system. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/irelandmagdalene-laundry-system-apology McDuff, E. (2008). Organizational context and the sexual harassment of clergy. Sociology of Religion, 69(3), 297–316. McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P., & Watson, K. (2002). Abuse during pregnancy and femicide: Urgent implications for women’s health. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02054-9 McGinley, A., & McMillan, T. (2019). The prevalence, characteristics, and impact of head injury in female prisoners: A systematic PRISMA review. Brain Injury, 33(13–14), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2019.1658223 McGlynn, C., & Westmarland, N. (2019). Kaleidoscopic justice: Sexual violence and victim-survivors’ perceptions of justice. Social & Legal Studies, 28(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918761200 McGlynn, C., Westmarland, N., & Godden, N. (2012). “I just wanted him to hear me”: Sexual violence and the possibilities of restorative justice. Journal of Law and Society, 39(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00579.x McGrath, A. J. (2014). The subjective impact of contact with the criminal justice system: The role of gender and stigmatization. Crime & Delinquency, 60(6), 884–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710389589 McGregor, M. J., Du Mont, J., & Myhr, T. L. (2002). Sexual assault forensic medical examination: Is evidence related to successful prosecution? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 39(6), 639–647.

McGregor, M. J., Lipowska, M., Shah, S., Du Mont, J., & De Siato, C. (2003). An exploratory analysis of suspected drug-facilitated sexual assault seen in a hospital emergency department. Women & Health, 37(3), 71–80. McGuire, D. L. (2011). At the dark end of the street: Black women, rape, and resistance—A new history of the civil rights movement from Rosa Parks to the rise of black power. Vintage Books. McHugh, G. A. (1980). Protection of the rights of pregnant women in prisons and detention facilities. New England Journal on Prison Law, 6(2), 231–263. McKenna, N. C., Golladay, K. A., & Holtfreter, K. (2019). Integrating general strain theory and trauma-informed principles into the study of older adult victimization. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 21(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2020.1692410 McKeown, A. (2010). Female offenders: Assessment of risk in forensic settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(6), 422– 429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.004 McKinney, K. (1992). Contrapower sexual harassment: The effects of student sex and type of behavior on faculty perceptions. Sex Roles, 27(11–12), 627–643. McLaren, J. A., Henson, V., & Stone, W. E. (2009). The sexual assault nurse examiner and the successful sexual assault prosecution. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450902791302 McLeod, M. (1983). Victim noncooperation in the prosecution of domestic assault: A research note. Criminology, 21(3), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1983.tb00268.x

McMahon, M. W. (1998). Women on guard: Discrimination and harassment in corrections. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. McMahon-Howard, J., Clay-Warner, J., & Renzulli, L. (2009). Criminalizing spousal rape: The diffusion of legal reforms. Sociological Perspectives, 52(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2009.52.4.505 McPhedran, S., Gover, A. R., & Mazerolle, P. (2017). A crossnational comparison of police attitudes about domestic violence: A focus on gender. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40(2), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2016-0083 Mead, R. (1999). Annals of reproduction: Eggs for sale. New Yorker, 56–65. Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer influence and moral evaluations of behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 251–266. Meeker, K. A., O’Neal, E. N., & Hayes, B. E. (2019). Policing and prosecuting sexual assault: An examination of arrest and initial filing decisions in cases involving adolescent complainants. Justice Quarterly, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1679863 Meier, K. J., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00653.x Melaku, T. M. (2019). You don’t look like a lawyer: Black women and systemic gendered racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Melander, L. A. (2010). College students’ perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(3), 263–268. Meloy, J. R. (1996). Stalking (obsessional following): A review of some preliminary studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(2), 147–162. Melton, H. C. (2004). Stalking in the context of domestic violence: Findings on the criminal justice system. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(3–4), 33–58. Melton, H. C. (2007). Stalking in the context of intimate partner abuse: In the victims’ words. Feminist Criminology, 2(4), 347–363. Melton, H. C., & Belknap, J. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 328–348. Ménard, K. S., Hall, G. C. N., Phung, A. H., Ghebrial, M. F. E., & Martin, L. (2003). Gender differences in sexual harassment and coercion in college students: Developmental, individual, and situational determinants. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(10), 1222–1239. Menard, S., & Pollock, W. (2014). Self reports of being falsely accused of criminal behavior. Deviant Behavior, 35(5), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.855096 Mendez, D. D., & Spriggs, A. L. (2008). Race as a social construct: The genetic fallacy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(4), 484–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.040

Merritt, D. J., & Reskin, B. F. (1992). The double minority: Empirical evidence of a double standard in law school hiring of minority women. Southern California Law Review, 65(5), 2299–2359. Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J., & Reynolds, A. J. (2012). Unsafe at any age: Linking childhood and adolescent maltreatment to delinquency and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(2), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811415284 Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686 Merton, R. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Messerschmidt, J. W. (1988). From Marx to Bonger: Socialist writings on women, gender, and crime. Sociological Inquiry, 58(4), 378–392. Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Messerschmidt, J. W. (1999). Feminist theory, criminology, and the challenge of diversity. In M. Chesney-Lind & J. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender (pp. 118–132). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Messina, N., Grella, C., Burdon, W., & Prendergast, M. (2007). Childhood adverse events and current traumatic distress: A comparison of men and women drug-dependent prisoners. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34(11), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807305150

Messing, J. T., & Heeren, J. W. (2009). Gendered justice: Domestic homicide and the death penalty. Feminist Criminology, 4(2), 170– 188. Messing, J. T., Vega, S., & Durfee, A. (2017). Protection order use among Latina survivors of intimate partner violence. Feminist Criminology, 12(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116678924 Messing, J. T., Ward-Lasher, A., Thaller, J., & Bagwell-Gray, M. E. (2015). The state of intimate partner violence intervention: Progress and continuing challenges. Social Work, 60(4), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swv027 Messner, M. A. (2000). Barbie girls versus sea monsters: Children constructing gender. Gender & Society, 14(6), 765–784. Meyer, J. P. (2019). The sustained harmful health effects of incarceration for women living with HIV. Journal of Women’s Health, 28(8), 1017–1018. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2019.7940 Meyer, S.-L., Vivian, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (1998). Men’s sexual aggression in marriage: Couples’ reports. Violence Against Women, 4(4), 415–435. Michalowski, R. J., & Kramer, R. C. (2006). State-corporate crime wrongdoing at the intersection of business and government. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Michalski, J. H. (2004). Making sociological sense out of trends in intimate partner violence: The social structure of violence against women. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 652–675. Middlemass, K. M. (2017). Convicted and condemned: The politics and policies of prisoner reentry. New York: New York University

Press. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, J. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52(2), 184–194. Miles-Johnson, T. (2019). Police recruit perception of transgender officers: Inclusion, diversity and transgender people. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-10-2019-0063 Miller, A. K., Markman, K. D., Amacker, A. M., & Menaker, T. A. (2012). Expressed sexual assault legal context and victim culpability attributions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6), 1023–1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511424493 Miller, A. R., & Segal, C. (2019). Do female officers improve law enforcement quality? Effects on crime reporting and domestic violence. Review of Economic Studies, 86(5), 2220–2247. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy051 Miller, E. M. (1986). Street woman. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Miller, H. V., Miller, J. M., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.04.001 Miller, J. (1998). Up it up: Gender and the accomplishment of street robbery. Criminology, 36(1), 37–66.

Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Miller, J. (2002). Violence and coercion in Sri Lanka’s commercial sex industry—Intersections of gender, sexuality, culture, and the law. Violence Against Women, 8(9), 1044–1073. Miller, J. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York: New York University Press. Miller, J., & Brunson, R. K. (2000). Gender dynamics in youth gangs: A comparison of males’ and females’ accounts. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 419–448. Miller, J., & White, N. A. (2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: A contextual examination. Criminology, 41(4), 1207– 1248. Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9914-8 Miller, S. L. (1989). Unintended side effects of pro-arrest policies and their race and class implications for battered women: A cautionary note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3(3), 299–317. Miller, S. L. (1999). Gender and community policing: Walking the talk. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7(12), 1339–1376. Miller, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: The paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Miller, S. L., & Burack, C. (1993). A critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v04n02_07 Miller, S. L., Forest, K. B., & Jurik, N. C. (2004). Lesbians in policing: Perceptions and work experiences within the macho cop culture. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 511–525). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Miller, S. L., & Iovanni, L. (2013). Using restorative justice for gendered violence: Success with a postconviction model. Feminist Criminology, 8(4), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113490781 Miller, S. L., & Smolter, N. L. (2011). “Paper abuse”: When all else fails, batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women, 17(5), 637–650. Mills, L. G. (1999). Killing her softly: Intimate abuse and the violence of state intervention. Harvard Law Review, 113(2), 550–613. Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mills, L. G., Grauwiler, P., & Pezold, N. (2006). Enhancing safety and rehabilitation in intimate violence treatments: New perspectives.

Public Health Reports, 121(4), 363–368. Minister, M. (2018). Rape culture on campus. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Minor-Harper, S. (1986). State and federal prisoners, 1925-85. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/102494NCJRS.pdf Minton, T. D., Cowhig, M. (2017). Jails in Indian Country, 2016. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jic16.pdf Mitchell, J. E., & Raghavan, C. (2019). The impact of coercive control on use of specific sexual coercion tactics. Violence Against Women, 1077801219884127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219884127 Mitchell, M. B., & Davis, J. B. (2019). Formerly incarcerated black mothers matter too: Resisting social constructions of motherhood. The Prison Journal, 99(4), 420–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519852079 Moe, A. M., & Ferraro, K. J. (2007). Criminalized mothers: The value and devaluation of parenthood from behind bars. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v29n03_08 Moe, A. M., & Ferraro, K. J. (2003). Malign neglect or benign respect. Women & Criminal Justice, 14(4), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v14n04_04 Moffitt, T. E. (1990). Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disorder: Boys’ developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15. Child Development, 61(3), 893–910.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. http://departments.bloomu.edu/crimjust/pages/articles/Dunedin_Vi ol.pdf Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4(2), 180–194. Mollard, E., & Hudson, D. B. (2016). Nurse-led trauma-informed correctional care for women. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 52(3), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12122 Moloney, K. R., & Moller, L. F. (2009). Good practice for mental health programming for women in prison: Reframing the parameters. Public Health, 123(6), 431–433. Moloney, M., Hunt, G. P., Joe-Laidler, K., & MacKenzie, K. (2011). Young mother (in the) hood: Gang girls’ negotiation of new identities. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2010.506531 Monahan, C. (2013). The failure of the bona fide occupational qualification in cross-gender prison guard cases: A problem beyond equal employment opportunity. Hypatia, 28(1), 101–121. Monahan, J., & Swanson, J. (2009). Lawyers at mid-career: A 20year longitudinal study of job and life satisfaction. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(3), 451–483.

Monahan, K. (2019). Intimate partner violence (IPV) and neurological outcomes: A review for practitioners. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(7), 807–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2019.1628154 Monchalin, L., Marques, O., Reasons, C., & Arora, P. (2019). Homicide and Indigenous peoples in North America: A structural analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 46, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.01.011 Monopoli, P. A. (2014). The status gap: Female faculty in the legal academy. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2014(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1050504 Moon, D. G., Thompson, R. J., & Bennett, R. (1993). Patterns of substance use among women in prison. In B. R. Fletcher, L. D. Shaver, & D. G. Moon (Eds.), Women prisoners: A forgotten population (pp. 45–54). Westport, CT: Praeger. Moore, E., Indig, D., & Haysom, L. (2014). Traumatic brain injury, mental health, substance use, and offending among incarcerated young people. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29(3), 239– 247. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0b013e31828f9876 Moore, J. W. (1991). Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Moore, J. W. (1999). Gang members’ families. In M. Chesney-Lind & J. Hagedorn (Eds.), Female gangs in America: Essays on girls, gangs and gender. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Moore, L. D., & Padavic, I. (2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls’ sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110380583

Moore, M. H. (2003). Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Morabito, M. S., Pattavina, A., & Williams, L. M. (2017). Active representation and police response to sexual assault complaints. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2016.1216730 Morabito, M. S., & Shelley, T. O. (2015). Representative bureaucracy: Understanding the correlates of the lagging progress of diversity in policing. Race and Justice, 5(4), 330–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368715575376 Morabito, M. S., & Shelley, T. O. (2018). Constrained agency theory and leadership: A new perspective to understand how female police officers overcome the structural and social impediments to promotion. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118763104 Moran, B. I. (1991). Quantum leap: A black woman uses legal education to obtain her honorary white pass. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 6, 118–121. Moran, B. I. (2005). The case for black inferiority? What must be true if Professor Sander is right. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 5, 41–59. Morash, M. (1983). Gangs, groups, and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 23(4), 309–335. Morash, M. (1986). Gender, peer group experiences, and seriousness of delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23(1), 43–67.

Morash, M., Bui, H., Stevens, T., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Getting out of harm’s way: One-year outcomes for abused women in a Vietnamese immigrant enclave. Violence Against Women, 14(12), 1413–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208327020 Morash, M., Bui, H., Zhang, Y., & Holtfreter, K. (2007). Risk factors for abusive relationships: A study of Vietnamese American immigrant women. Violence Against Women, 13(7), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207302044 Morash, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). A reformulation and partial test of the power control theory of delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 8(3), 347–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100091091 Morash, M., & Greene, J. R. (1986). Evaluating women on patrol: A critique of contemporary wisdom. Evaluation Review, 10(2), 230– 255. Morash, M., & Haarr, R. N. (1995). Gender, workplace problems, and stress in policing. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 113–140. Morash, M., & Haarr, R. N. (2012). Doing, redoing, and undoing gender: Variation in gender identities of women working as police officers. Feminist Criminology, 7(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111413253 Morash, M., Haarr, R. N., & Rucker, L. (1994). A comparison of programming for women and men in U.S. prisons in the 1980s. Crime & Delinquency, 40(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128794040002004 Morello, K. B. (1986). The invisible bar: The woman lawyer in America, 1638 to the present. Random House.

Morris, A. [Allison]. (1987). Women, crime, and criminal justice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Morris, A. [Anne]. (1996). Gender and ethnic differences in social constraints among a sample of New York City police officers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(2), 224–235. Morris, G. D., & Wood, P. B. (2010). Delinquency and nonreservation American Indians: The role of unique and general predictors of interpersonal and property offending. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 8, 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2010.526862 Morris, M. W. (2015). Pushout: The criminalization of Black girls in schools. New York, NY: The New Press. Morris, R. R. (1964). Female delinquency and relational problems. Social Forces, 43(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2575969 Morris, R. R. (1965). Attitudes toward delinquency by delinquents, non-delinquents and their friends. British Journal of Criminology, 5(3), 249–265. Morrow, W. J., Dario, L. M., & Rodriguez, N. (2015). Examining the prevalence of a ‘youth discount’ in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.912144 Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing Gender Differences in Partner Violence. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.10.4.251 Morse, D. S., Wilson, J. L., Driffill, N. J., Lauture, J., Khan, A., & King-Turner, S. O. (2019). Outcomes among pregnant recently incarcerated women attending a reentry transitions clinic. Journal

of Community Psychology, 47(3), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22147 Morse, D. S., Wilson, J. L., McMahon, J. M., Dozier, A. M., Quiroz, A., & Cerulli, C. (2017). Does a primary health clinic for formerly incarcerated women increase linkage to care? Women’s Health Issues, 27(4), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2017.02.003 Morse, T., Dussetschleger, J., Warren, N., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Talking about health: Correction employees’ assessments of obstacles to healthy living. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(9), 1037–1045. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182260e2c Morton, J. B. (1981). Women in correctional employment. In B. H. Olsson (Ed.), Women in corrections (pp. 7–16). College Park, MA: American Correctional Association. Morton, K. A. (2016). Hitchhiking and missing and murdered Indigenous women: A critical discourse analysis of billboards on the Highway of Tears. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 41(3), 299– 326. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28261 Mossman, M. J. (2006). The first women lawyers: A comparative study of gender, law and the legal professions. Portland, OR: Hart. Motley, C. B. (1998). Equal justice—under law: An autobiography. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Mowen, T., & Brent, J. (2016). School discipline as a turning point: The cumulative effect of suspension on arrest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(5), 628–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816643135

Moyer, I. L. (1978). Differential social structures and homosexuality among women in prison. Virginia Social Science Journal, 13, 13– 19. Moyer, I. L. (1980). Leadership in a women’s prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(4), 233–241. Moyer, I. L. (1984). Deceptions and realities of life in women’s prisons. The Prison Journal, 64(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558406400105 Mršević, Z., & Hughes, D. M. (1997). Violence against women in Belgrade, Serbia: SOS hotline 1990-1993. Violence Against Women, 3(2), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003002002 Muftic, L. R., Bouffard, J. A., & Bouffard, L. A. (2007). An exploratory study of women arrested for intimate partner violence—Violent women or violent resistance? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(6), 753–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507300756 Muftic, L. R., Finn, M. A., & Marsh, E. A. (2015). The victim-offender overlap, intimate partner violence, and sex: Assessing differences among victims, offenders, and victim-offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 61(7), 899–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712453677 Muftić, L. R., & Updegrove, A. H. (2018). The mediating effect of self-control on parenting and delinquency: A gendered approach with a multinational sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(10), 3058–3076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17725732 Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Muller, A. E., Havnes, I. A., Rognli, E. B., & Bukten, A. (2018). Inmates with harmful substance use increase both exercise and nicotine use under incarceration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2663. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122663 Mullings, J. L., Marquart, J. W., & Hartley, D. J. (2003). Exploring the effects of childhood sexual abuse and its impact on HIV/AIDS risktaking behavior among women prisoners. The Prison Journal, 83(4), 442–463. Mullings, J. L., Pollock, J., & Crouch, B. M. (2002). Drugs and criminality: Results from the Texas Women Inmates Study. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(4), 69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v13n04_05 Mullins, C. W., & Wright, R. (2003). Gender, social networks, and residential burglary. Criminology, 41(3), 813–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01005.x Mullins, C. W., Wright, R., & Jacobs, B. A. (2004). Gender, streetlife and criminal retaliation. Criminology, 42(4), 911–940. Mumola, C. J., & Beck, A. J. (1997, June). Prisoners in 1996. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 164619). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p96.pdf Murakawa, N. (2014). The first civil right: How liberals built prison America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Murphy, D. A., Harrell, L., Fintzy, R., Belin, T. R., Gutierrez, A., Vitero, S. J., & Shetty, V. (2016). A comparison of methamphetamine users to a matched NHANES cohort: Propensity score analyses for oral health care and dental service need. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 43(4), 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9449-0

Murphy, S. B., Edwards, K. M., Bennett, S., Bibeau, S. J., & Sichelstiel, J. (2014). Police reporting practices for sexual assault cases in which “the victim does not wish to pursue charges.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513504648 Murphy, S. M., Kilpatrick, D. G., Amick-McMullan, A., Veronen, L. J., Paduhovich, J., Best, C. L., Villeponteaux, L. A., & Saunders, B. E. (1988). Current psychological functioning of child sexual assault survivors: A community study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(1), 55–79. Murphy-Geiss, G. (2007). Hospitable or hostile environment: Sexual harassment in the United Methodist Church. Review of Religious Research, 48(3), 260–272. Murphy-Geiss, G. E., Roberts, W. T., & Miles, D. J. (2015). One size does not fit all: A case study of an alternative intimate partner violence court. Feminist Criminology, 10(4), 348–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114554258 Murray, J. D., Spadafore, J. A., & McIntosh, W. D. (2005). Belief in a just world and social perception: Evidence for automatic activation. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(1), 35–47. Murray, M. P. (2009). Modern time-series methods and the dynamics of prison populations. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 79–86. Murshid, N. S., & Bowen, E. A. (2018). A trauma-informed analysis of the Violence Against Women Act’s provisions for undocumented immigrant women. Violence Against Women, 24(13), 1540–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217741991 Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778019922181149

Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., Corzine, J., & Huff-Corzine, L. (2013). Social disorganization and unfounded sexual assault case clearances. Violence and Victims; New York, 28(1), 90–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.28.1.90 Musto, J. (2019). Transing critical criminology: A critical unsettling and transformative anti-carceral feminist reframing. Critical Criminology, 27(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-01909434-y Myers, E. R. (2013). Outcomes of donor oocyte cycles in assisted reproduction. JAMA, 310(22), 2403. Naffine, N. (1987). Female crime: The construction of women in criminology. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin. Naffine, N. (1989). Towards justice for girls. Women & Criminal Justice, 1(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v01n01_02 Naffine, N. (1996). Feminism and criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Nagasawa, R., Qian, Z., & Wong, P. (2000). Social control theory as a theory of conformity: The case of Asian/Paciftc drug and alcohol nonuse. Sociological Perspectives, 43(4), 581–603. Nagel, D. H., Cardascia, J., & Ross, C. E. (1982). Sex differences in the processing of criminal defendants. In D.K. Weisberg (Ed.), Women and the law (Vol. 1, pp. 259–282). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Nagel, D. H., & Hagan, J. (1983). Gender and crime. In M. H. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4, pp. 91–144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33(1), 111– 139. Nakhaie, M. R., Silverman, R. A., & LaGrange, T. C. (2000). Selfcontrol and social control: An examination of gender, ethnicity, class and delinquency. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 35– 59. Nallin, J. A. (1981). Female correctional administrators. In B. H. Olsson (Ed.), Women in corrections (pp. 17–26). College Park, MA: American Correctional Association. Nanda, J. (2012). Blind discretion: Girls of color & delinquency in the juvenile justice system symposium: Overpoliced and underprotected: Women, race, and criminalization: II. Crime, punishment, and the management of racial marginality. UCLA Law Review, 6, 1502–1539. Natarajan, M. (1996). Towards equality: Women police in India. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 1–18. Natarajan, M. (2001). Women police in a traditional society: Test of a western model of integration. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 42(1–2), 211–233. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (1917, June). The crisis, 14(2). National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2019). Year of census by sex for United States [Interactive U.S. data applications of incarcerated youth]. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display.asp National Gang Center. (n.d.). National Youth Gang Survey analysis. https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis

National Inquiry Into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. (2019). Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Vol. 1a). https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a.pdf National Victim Center. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Arlington, VA: Author. Neumann, C. E. (2015). Batts, Deborah A. GLBTQ Archives. http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/batts_da_S.pdf Neumann, R. K., Jr. (2000). Women in legal education: What the statistics show. Journal of Legal Education, 50(3), 313–357. Neustein, A., Lesher, M., & Felder, R. L. (2005). From madness to mutiny: Why mothers are running from the family courts—and what can be done about it. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Neville, H. A., & Pugh, A. O. (1997). General and culture-specific factors influencing African American women’s reporting patterns and perceived social support following sexual assault: An exploratory investigation. Violence Against Women, 3(4), 361– 381. Newman, K. S. (Ed.). (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York, NY: Basic Books. Nguyen, H., & Reuter, P. (2012). How risky is marijuana possession? Considering the role of age, race, and gender. Crime & Delinquency, 58(6), 879–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712461122

Nguyen, L. K., Spitzberg, B. H., & Lee, C. M. (2012). Coping with obsessive relational intrusion and stalking: The role of social support and coping strategies. Violence and Victims, 27(3), 414– 433. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.3.414 Nikolic-Ristanovic, V. (1999). Living without democracy and peace: Violence against women in the former Yugoslavia. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778019922181158 Nobiling, T., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (1998). A tale of two counties: Unemployment and sentence severity. Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093841 Noble-Carr, D., Moore, T., & McArthur, M. (2020). Children’s experiences and needs in relation to domestic and family violence: Findings from a meta-synthesis. Child & Family Social Work, 25(1), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12645 Nolasco, C. A. R., & Vaughn, M. S. (2011). Judicial scrutiny of gender-based employment practices in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 106–119. Noonan, M. C., & Corcoran, M. E. (2004). The mommy track and partnership: Temporary delay or dead end? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 130–150. Norgren, J. (2013). Rebels at the bar: The fascinating, forgotten stories ofAmerica’s first women lawyers. New York: New York University Press. Norgren, J. (2018). Stories from trailblazing women lawyers: Lives in the law. New York: New York University Press.

Norris, S. M., Huss, M. T., & Palarea, R. E. (2011). A pattern of violence: Analyzing the relationship between intimate partner violence and stalking. Violence and Victims, 26(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.1.103 Nosek, M. A., Howland, C. A., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). The investigation of abuse and women with disabilities: Going beyond assumptions. Violence Against Women, 7(4), 477–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122182569 Novak, K. J., Brown, R. A., & Frank, J. (2011). Women on patrol: An analysis of differences in officer arrest behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(4), 566–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180216 Nutting, A. W. (2013). The Booker decision and discrimination in federal criminal sentences. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2011.00449.x Nutting, A. W. (2015). Squealer dealers: The market for information in federal drug trafficking prosecutions. Economic Inquiry, 53(1), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12123 Oberfield, Z. W. (2019). Change and stability in public workforce development: A 10-year study of new officers in an urban police department. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1753–1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1571276 Oberman, M. (2003). Mothers who kill: Cross-cultural patterns in and perspectives on contemporary maternal filicide. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26(5), 493–514. O’Brien, R. M. (1999). Measuring the convergence/divergence of “serious crime” arrest rates for males and females: 1960-1995. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007518326031

Ocen, P. A. (2012). Punishing pregnancy: Race, incarceration, and the shackling of pregnant prisoners. California Law Review, 100(5), 1239–1311. Ocen, P. A. (2017). Birthing injustice: Pregnancy as a status offense. George Washington Law Review, 85(4), 1163–1223. O’Connor, S. D., & Azzarelli, K. K. (2011). Sustainable development, rule of law, and the impact of women judges. Cornell International Law Journal, 44, 3. Odem, M. E. (1995). Delinquent daughters: Protecting and policing adolescent female sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2019). Race/ethnicity profile of juvenile offenders in residential placement, 2017. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08211.asp? qaDate=2017 O’Hara, S. (2012). Monsters, playboys, virgins and whores: Rape myths in the news media’s coverage of sexual violence. Language and Literature, 21(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947012444217 O’Keefe, M., & Treister, L. (1998). Victims of dating violence among high school students: Are predictors different for males and females? Violence Against Women, 4(2), 195–223. Olafson, E. (2011). Child sexual abuse: Demography, impact, and interventions. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 4(1), 8–21. Olds, D., Henderson, J., Cole, R., & Eckenrode, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and

antisocial behavior. JAMA, 280(14), 1238. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.14.1238 Olson, D. E., Lurigio, A. J., & Seng, M. (2000). A comparison of female and male probationers: Characteristics and case outcomes. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(4), 65. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v11n04_05 Olson, D. E., & Stalans, L. J. (2001). Violent offenders on probation: Profile, sentence, and outcome differences among domestic violence and other violent probationers. Violence Against Women, 7(10), 1164–1185. Olson, D. E., Stalans, L. J., & Escobar, G. (2016). Comparing male and female prison releasees across risk factors and postprison recidivism. Women & Criminal Justice, 26(2), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1083930 Olson, M. V., & Amendola, K. L. (2019). Promoting health, safety, and wellness in Los Angeles county jails: A process evaluation of gender responsive programing for incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2019.1700874 Ontiveros, M. L. (1993). Three perspectives on workplace harassment of women of color. Golden Gate University Law Review, 23(3), 817–828. Oppenlander, N. (1982). Coping or copping out: Police service delivery in domestic disputes. Criminology, 20(3–4), 449–465. Orchowski, L. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2012). To whom do college women confide following sexual assault? A prospective study of predictors of sexual assault disclosure and social reactions. Violence Against Women, 18(3), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212442917

Ortega, S. T., & Myles, J. L. (1987). Race and gender effects on fear of crime: An interactive model with age. Criminology, 25(1), 133– 152. Ostrowsky, M. K., & Messner, S. F. (2005). Explaining crime for a young adult population: An application of general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(5), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.06.004 Otero, L. M. R., Carrera Fernández, M. V., Lameiras Fernández, M., & Rodríguez Castro, Y. (2015). Violencia en parejas transexuales, transgénero e intersexuales: Una revisión bibliográfica. Saúde e Sociedade, 24, 914–935. https://doi.org/10.1590/S010412902015134224 Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(1), 41–57. Ouellet, M., Hashimi, S., Gravel, J., & Papachristos, A. V. (2019). Network exposure and excessive use of force. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 675–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/17459133.12459 Owen, B. (1998). “In the mix”: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. Albany: State University of New York Press. Owen, B. A., Wells, J., & Pollock, J. M. (2017). In search of safety: Confronting inequality in women’s imprisonment. Oakland: University of California Press. Page, J. (2016). Eliminating the enemy: The import of denying prisoners access to higher education in Clinton’s America. Punishment & Society, 6(4), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504046118

Page, J., Piehowski, V., & Soss, J. (2019). A debt of care: Commercial bail and the gendered logic of criminal justice predation. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(1), 150–172. Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Factors affecting women’s decisions to leave violent relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 2(4), 391–414. Pagelow, M. D. (1993). Justice for victims of spouse abuse in divorce and child custody cases. Violence and Victims; New York, 8(1), 69–83. Palmer, B. (2001). Women in the American judiciary: Their influence and impact. Women & Politics, 23(3), 91–101. Paludi, M., Nydegger, R., Desouza, E., Nydegger, L., & Dicker, K. A. (2006). International perspectives on sexual harassment of college students: The sounds of silence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087, 103–120. Panfil, V. R. (2014). Gay gang- and crime-involved men’s experiences with homophobic bullying and harassment in schools. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(1), 79–103. Panfil, V. R. (2017). The gang’s all queer: The lives of gay gang members. New York: New York University Press. Panfil, V. R., & Peterson, D. (2015). Gender, sexuality, and gangs: Reenvisioning diversity. In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 208–234). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Paoline, E. A., Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2015). Job stress and job satisfaction among jail staff: Exploring gendered effects. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(5), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989302

Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2004). Women police officers and the use of coercion. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(3–4), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v15n03_05 Parker, L. S. (1997). A “brutal case” or “only a family jar”? Violence against women in San Diego County, 1880-1900. Violence against Women, 3(3), 294–318. Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 691–697. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31(1), 163–204. Pattavina, A., Carkin, D. M., & Tracy, P. E. (2017). Assessing the representativeness of NIBRS arrest data. Crime & Delinquency, 63(12), 1626–1652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717724298 Patton, D., & Smith, J. L. (2017). Lawyer, interrupted: Gender bias in oral arguments at the US Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Courts, 5(2), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1086/692611 Payne, A. A. (2009). Girls, boys, and schools: Gender differences in the relationships between school-related factors and student deviance. Criminology, 47(4), 1167–1200. Payne, B. K., Time, V., & Raper, S. (2005). Regulating legal misconduct in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(3–4), 81–95. Paynter, M. J. (2018). Policy and legal protection for breastfeeding and incarcerated women in Canada. Journal of Human Lactation, 34(2), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334418758659

Paynter, M. J., Drake, E. K., Cassidy, C., & Snelgrove-Clarke, E. (2019). Maternal health outcomes for incarcerated women: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(11–12), 2046– 2060. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14837 Pearce, R. G., Wald, E., & Ballakrishnen, S. S. (2015). Difference blindness vs. bias awareness: Why law firms with the best of intentions have failed to create diverse partnerships colloquium: The challenge of equity in the legal profession: An international and comparative perspective. Fordham Law Review, 83(5), 2407– 2456. Pearson, H. (2006). Health effects of egg donation may take decades to emerge. Nature, 442(7103), 607–608. https://doi.org/10.1038/442607a Peery, D. (2019). Survey on retention and promotion of women in law firms (2019 Survey Report). Chicago, IL: National Association of Women Lawyers. https://www.nawl.org/page/2018survey Pelkey, W. L., & DeGrange, M. L. (1996). Gender bias in field training evaluation programs: An exploratory analysis. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 79–90. Peltan, J. R., & Cellucci, T. (2011). Childhood sexual abuse and substance abuse treatment utilization among substancedependent incarcerated women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41(3), 215–224. Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth: Minnesota Program Development. Peresie, J. L. (2005). Female judges matter: Gender and collegial decisionmaking in the federal appellate courts. Yale Law Journal, 114(7), 1759–1790.

Perilla, J. L., Frndak, K., Lillard, D., & East, C. (2003). A working analysis of women’s use of violence in the context of learning, opportunity, and choice. Violence Against Women, 9(1), 10–46. Perry, M. E. (1991). With brave vigilance and a hundred eyes: The making of women’s prisons in counter-reformation Spain. Women & Criminal Justice, 2(1), 3–17. Perry-Jenkins, M., & Gerstel, N. (2020). Work and family in the second decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 420–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12636 Peterson, C. B. (1982). The criminal justice system and women: Women offenders, victims, workers. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), Doing time with the boys: An analysis of women correctional officers in all-male facilities (pp. 437–460). New York, NY: Clark Boardman. Peterson, D. (2012). Delinquent girls: Contexts, relationships, and adaptation. In S. Miller, L. D. Leve, & P. K. Kerig (Eds.), Girlfriends, gun-holders, and ghetto-rats? Moving beyond narrow views of girls in gangs (pp. 71–84). New York, NY: Springer. Peterson, D., & Panfil, V. R. (Eds.). (2014a). Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice. New York, NY: Springer. Peterson, D., & Panfil, V. R. (2014b). Street gangs: The gendered experiences of female and male gang members. In R. Gartner & B. McCarthy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime (pp. 468–489). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Peterson, E. S., & Skinner, I. (2019). Queer looking: Appearance and LGBTQ citizens’ victimizations and interactions with the criminal justice system. In B. Berry (Ed.), Appearance bias and crime (pp. 235–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pettit, E. (2019, January 16). Ending ban on Pell Grants for prisoners is said to yield “cascade” of benefits. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Ending-Ban-on-PellGrants-for/245481 Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism (2nd ed.). Oakland, CA: Chardon Press. Phillips, S., Haas, L. P., & Coverdill, J. E. (2012). Disentangling victim gender and capital punishment: The role of media. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111427295 Pickett, M. L., Allison, M., Twist, K., Klemp, J. R., & Ramaswamy, M. (2018). Breast cancer risk among women in jail. BioResearch Open Access, 7(1), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1089/biores.2018.0018 Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pierce-Baker, C. (1998). Surviving the silence: Black women’s stories of rape. New York, NY: Norton. Piispa, M. (2002). Complexity of patterns of violence against women in heterosexual partnerships. Violence Against Women, 8(7), 873– 900. Pinciotti, C. M., & Seligowski, A. V. (2019). The influence of sexual assault resistance on reporting tendencies and law enforcement response: Findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519877946

Pinhey, T. K., & Wells, N. R. (2007). Asian-Pacific Islander adolescent methamphetamine use: Does “ice” increase aggression and sexual risks? Substance Use & Misuse, 42(11), 1801–1809. Piquero, A. R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Haapanen, R. (2002). Crime in emerging adulthood. Criminology, 40(1), 137–169. Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J. M., & Parker, K. F. (2002). Race, local life circumstances, and criminal activity. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 654–670. Piquero, A. R., & Mazerolle, P. (Eds.). (2000). Life-course criminology: Contemporary and classic readings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Piquero, N. L., Gover, A. R., MacDonald, J. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). The influence of delinquent peers on delinquency: Does gender matter? Youth & Society, 36(3), 251–275. Pizzey, E. (1977). Scream quietly or the neighbors will hear. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow. Platt, A. (1974). Prospects for a radical criminology in the United States. Crime and Social Justice, 1, 2–10. Plummer, S.-B., & Findley, P. A. (2012). Women with disabilities’ experience with physical and sexual abuse: Review of the literature and implications for the field. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838011426014 Poehlmann, J. (2005). Incarcerated mothers’ contact with children, perceived family relationships, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 350–357.

Pogrebin, M., Dodge, M., & Chatman, H. (2000). Reflections of African-American women on their careers in urban policing. Their experiences of racial and sexual discrimination. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 28(4), 311–326. Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (1997). The sexualized work environment: A look at women jail officers. The Prison Journal, 77(1), 41–57. Pollak, O. (1950). The criminality of women. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pollock, J. M. (1995). Women in corrections: Custody and the caring ethic. In A. V. Merlo & J. M. Pollock (Eds.), Women, law, and social control (pp. 97–116). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pollock, J. M. (1998). Counseling women in prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pollock, J. M. (2002). Women, prison, & crime (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Pollock, W., Hill, M. C., Menard, S., & Elliott, D. S. (2016). Predicting consistency between officially recorded and self-reported records of arrest. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9343-9 Pollock-Byrne, J., Ramirez, M., Merlo, A. V., & Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1995). Women in the legal profession. In Women, law, and social control (pp. 79–95). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1986). Sex and supervision: Guarding male and female inmates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing inmate misconduct and prison returns with facility education programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12290 Poole, E. D., & Pogrebin, M. R. (1988). Factors affecting the decision to remain in policing: A study of women officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16(1), 49–55. Pope, K. E., & Pope, D. W. (1986). Attitudes of male police officers towards their female counterparts. The Police Journal, 59(3), 242– 250. Posadas, J. (2017). Teaching the cause of rape culture: Toxic masculinity. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 33(1), 177– 179. https://doi.org/10.2979/jfemistudreli.33.1.23 Postmus, J. L., Plummer, S.-B., McMahon, S., Murshid, N. S., & Kim, M. S. (2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(3), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511421669 Potoczniak, M. J., Mourot, J. E., Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Potoczniak, D. J. (2003). Legal and psychological perspectives on same-sex domestic violence: A multisystemic approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(2), 252–259. Potter, H. (2006). An argument for Black feminist criminology: Understanding African American women’s experiences with intimate partner abuse using an integrated approach. Feminist Criminology, 1(2), 106–124. Potter, H. (2007). Battered Black women’s use of religious services and spirituality for assistance in leaving abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 13(3), 262–284.

Potter, H. (2008). Battle cries: Black women and intimate partner abuse. New York: New York University Press. Potter, H. (2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. New York, NY: Routledge. Potter, S., Howard, R., Murphy, S., & Moynihan, M. M. (2018). Longterm impacts of college sexual assaults on women survivors’ educational and career attainments. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1440574 Presser, L. (2005). Negotiating power and narrative in research: Implications for feminist methodology. Signs, 30(4), 2067–2090. Presser, L. (2008). Been a heavy life: Stories of violent men. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Presser, L., & Gaarder, E. (2000). Can restorative justice reduce battering? Some preliminary considerations. Social Justice, 27(1), 175–195. Prickett, K. C., Martin-Storey, A., & Crosnoe, R. (2018). Firearm ownership in high-conflict families: Differences according to state laws restricting firearms to misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 33(5), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9966-3 Prendergast, M. L., Wellisch, J., & Falkin, G. P. (1995, June 1). Assessment of and services for substance-abusing women offenders in community and correctional settings. The Prison Journal, 75(2), 240-256. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0032855595075002 007

Price, B. R. (1974). Study of leadership strength of female police executives. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 2(2), 219–226. Price, B. R. (1989). Is police work changing as a result of women’s contributions? The International Conference for Policewomen, the Netherlands. Proctor, J. (2009). The impact imprisonment has on women’s health and health care from the perspective of female inmates in Kansas. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450802586802 Próspero, M. (2009). Sex-symmetric effects of coercive behaviors on mental health? Not exactly. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 128–146. Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Pullmann, M. D. (2010). Predictors of criminal charges for youth in public mental health during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(4), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9320-8 Pulverman, C. S., Christy, A. Y., & Kelly, U. A. (2019). Military sexual trauma and sexual health in women veterans: A systematic review. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 7(3), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.03.002 Purvis, A. (2018). Women in the legal profession: How gender barriers and attrition are keeping women out of the judiciary student notes. Journal of the Legal Profession, 43(2), 283–296.

Putkonen, H., Weizmann-Henelius, G., Lindberg, N., Rovamo, T., & Häkkänen-Nyholm, H. (2011). Gender differences in homicide offenders’ criminal career, substance abuse and mental health care. A nationwide register-based study of Finnish homicide offenders 1995-2004. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.782 Putnam, F. W. (2003). Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), 269–278. Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 239–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811434830 Quinney, R. (1972). The ideology of law: Notes for a radical alternative to legal oppression. Issues in Criminology, 7(1), 1–35. Quinney, R. (1975). Criminology: Analysis and critique of crime in America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2008a). Female officers and the ethic of care: Does officer gender impact police behaviors? Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 426–434. Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2008b). Survival in an “all boys club”: Policewomen and their fight for acceptance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(2), 251–270. Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2009). POLICEwomen or PoliceWOMEN? Doing gender and police work. Feminist Criminology, 4(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085108327659

Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2011). Female forces: Beauty, brains, and a badge. Feminist Criminology, 6(2), 132–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111398471 Rabe-Hemp, C. E., & Beichner, D. (2011). An analysis of advertisements: A lens for viewing the social exclusion of women in police imagery. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(1), 63–81. Rabe-Hemp, C. E., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). An exploration of recidivism and the officer shuffle in police sexual violence. Police Quarterly, 16(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611112464964 Rabe-Hemp, C. E., & Miller, S. L. (2018). Special issue: Women at work in criminal justice organizations. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085118763391 Rackley, E. (2007). From Arachne to Charlotte: An imaginative revisiting of Gilligan’s in a different voice. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 13(3), 751–774. Rader, N. E. (2007). Surrendering solidarity: Considering the relationships among female correctional officers. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(3), 27–42. Rader, N. E., & Haynes, S. H. (2011). Gendered fear of crime socialization: An extension of Akers’s social learning theory. Feminist Criminology, 6(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111408278 Rader, N. E., May, D. C., & Goodrum, S. (2007). An empirical assessment of the “threat of victimization”: Considering fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Sociological Spectrum, 27(5), 475–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170701434591

Raeder, M. S. (2003). Gendered implications of sentencing and correctional practices. In B. E. Bloom (Ed.), Gendered justice (pp. 173–208). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Raeder, M. S. (2012). Making a better world for children of incarcerated parents. Family Court Review, 50(1), 23–35. Rafter, N. H. (1985). Partial justice: Women in state prisons, 18001935. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Rafter, N. H. (1989). Gender and justice. In L. Goodstein & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), The American prison (pp. 89–109). Plenum Press. Rafter, N. H., & Natalizia, E. M. (1981). Marxist feminism: Implications for criminal justice. Crime & Delinquency, 27(1), 81– 98. Raganella, A. J., & White, M. D. (2004). Race, gender, and motivation for becoming a police officer: Implications for building a representative police department. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.08.009 Rahav, M. (1984). Norm set and deviant-behavior: The case of agesex norms. Deviant Behavior, 5(1–4), 151–179. Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367– 398. Rakhorst, H. A., Mureau, M. A. M., Mathijssen, I. M. J., Cooter, R. D., McNeil, J. J., van Hooff, M., van der Hulst, R., Hommes, J., Hoornweg, M., Moojen-Zaal, L., & Liem, M. (2017). The new optout Dutch National Breast Implant Registry—Lessons learnt from

the road to implementation. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 70(10), 1354–1360. Ramos, J., & Wenger, M. R. (2019). Immigration and recidivism: What is the link? Justice Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1656763 Randall, M. (2004). Domestic violence and the construction of “ideal victims”: Assaulted women’s “image problems” in law. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 23(1), 107–154. Rankin, B. H., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: The interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth. Social Problems, 49(1), 79–100. Rapaport, E. (1991). The death penalty and gender discrimination. Law & Society Review, 25(2), 367–383. Raphael, S. (2009). Explaining the rise in U.S. incarceration rates. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 87–95. Rasche, C. (1975). The female offender as an object of criminological research. In The female offender (pp. 9–28). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Ratner, M. S. (Ed.). (1993). Crack pipe as pimp: An ethnographic investigation of sex-for-crack exchanges. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Rava, J., Shattuck, P., Rast, J., & Roux, A. (2017). The prevalence and correlates of involvement in the criminal justice system among youth on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(2), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2958-3

Ravi, A., Blankenship, K. M., & Altice, F. L. (2007). The association between history of violence and HIV risk: A cross-sectional study of HIV-negative incarcerated women in Connecticut. Women’s Health Issues, 17(4), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2007.02.009 Ravoira, L., Graziano, J., & Patino-Lydia, V. (2012). Urgent work: Developing a gender-responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system. Universitas Psychologica, 11(4), 1167–1181. Razack, S. H. (2016). Gendering disposability. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 28(2), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.28.2.285 Reaves, B. A. (2010). Local police departments, 2007 (NCJ 231174) [Data set]. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09222.v2 Reaves, B. A., & Hickman, M. (2004). Law enforcement management and administrative statistics, 2000. Data for individual state and local agencies with 100 or more officers. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lem00in.pdf Reed, E., Salazar, M., Agah, N., Behar, A. I., Silverman, J. G., Walsh-Buhi, E., … Raj, A. (2019). Experiencing sexual harassment by males and associated substance use & poor mental health outcomes among adolescent girls in the US. SSM Population Health, 9, 100476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100476 Reese, B., & McDougal, M. K. (2018). Gender, status, and tax offenses. Deviant Behavior, 39(12), 1647–1657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1410628

Reid, L. W., & Konrad, M. (2004). The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effects of gender and perceived risk on fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 24(4), 399–425. Remick, L. A. (1993). Read her lips: An argument for a verbal consent standard in rape. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 1103–1151. Remmington, P. W. (1983). Women in the police: Integration or separation? Qualitative Sociology, 6(2), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987083 Rennison, C. M. (2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 1993-2001. U.S. Dept. of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf Rennison, C. M. (2007). Reporting to the police by Hispanic victims of violence. Violence and Victims, 22(6), 754–772. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007782793110 Rennison, C. M. (2009). A new look at the gender gap in offending. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(3), 171–190. Rennison, C. M. (2010). An investigation of reporting violence to the police: A focus on Hispanic victims. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 390–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.007 Rennison, C. M., & Melde, C. (2014). Gender and robbery: A national test. Deviant Behavior, 35(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.848104

Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence (Special Report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdSSJPjBP2WgAVitXNyoA Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2002). Intimate partner violence (Special Report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Resnick, J., & Shaw, N. (1980). Prisoners of their sex: Problems of incarcerated women. In I. P. Robbins (Ed.), Prisoners’ rights sourcebook (pp. 319–413). Clark Boardman. Reviere, R., & Young, V. D. (2004). Aging behind bars: Health care for older female inmates. Journal of Women & Aging, 16(1–2), 55– 69. Rhode, D. L. (1987). Justice, gender, and the justices. In L. L. Crites & W. L. Hepperle (Eds.), Women, the courts, and equality (pp. 13– 34). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Rhode, D. L. (1989). Justice and gender: Sex discrimination and the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rhode, D. L. (1991). The “no-problem” problem: Feminist challenges and cultural change. Yale Law Journal, 100(6), 1731–1793. Rhode, D. L. (2011). From platitudes to priorities: Diversity and gender equity in law firms. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 24(4), 1041–1078. Rice, M. (1990). Challenging orthodoxies in feminist theory: A Black feminist critique. In L. Gelsthorpe & A. Morse (Eds.), Feminist

perspectives in criminology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Rich, K. (2019). Trauma-informed police responses to rape victims. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(4), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1540448 Rich, K., & Seffrin, P. (2014). Birds of a feather or fish out of water? Policewomen taking rape reports. Feminist Criminology, 9(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113510551 Richie, B. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. New York, NY: Routledge. Richie, B. (2006). Women and drug use: The case for a justice analysis. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2–3), 137–143. Richie, B. (2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. New York: New York University Press. Ridgeley, R. (2019, April 17). Opinion | I beat breast cancer. Then I found out my implants could cause lymphoma. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-beat-breastcancer-then-i-got-lymphoma-from-myimplants/2019/04/17/c18e713e-5c63-11e9-842d7d3ed7eb3957_story.html Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531. Rigakos, G. S. (1997). Situational determinants of police responses to civil and criminal injunctions for battered women. Violence against Women, 3(2), 204–216.

Riger, S., Foster-Fishman, P., Nelson-Kuna, J., & Curran, B. (1995). Gender bias in courtroom dynamics. Law and Human Behavior, 19(5), 465–480. Riger, S., & Gordon, M. T. (1981). The fear of rape: A study in socialcontrol. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 71–92. Riggs, S., & Cook, C. L. (2015). The shadow of physical harm? Examining the unique and gendered relationship between fear of murder versus fear of sexual assault on fear of violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2383–2409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553117 Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York: New York University Press. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450. Rivera, B., & Widom, C. S. (1990). Childhood victimization and violent offending. Violence and Victims, 5(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.5.1.19 Rivlin, G. (1981). The last bastion of macho: Policewomen. Update on Law-Related Education, 5, 22-24, 65-67. Robarge, J. (2006). Power Inside: A grassroots program for women survivors of traumatic violence, the street economy, and the criminal justice system. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2–3), 115– 125. Robbins, K. (1999). No-drop prosecution of domestic violence: Just good policy, or equal protection mandate? Stanford Law Review, 52(1), 205–233.

Roberto, K. A., & Teaster, P. B. (2005). Sexual abuse of vulnerable young and old women: A comparative analysis of circumstances and outcomes. Violence Against Women, 11(4), 473–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204274329 Roberts, A. (2008). The influences of incident and contextual characteristics on crime clearance of nonlethal violence: A multilevel event history analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.007 Roberts, C., & Connell, R. (2016). Feminist theory and the global South. Feminist Theory, 17(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700116645874 Roberts, D. E. (2012). Prison, foster care, and the systemic punishment of black mothers symposium: Overpoliced and underprotected: Women, race, and criminalization: I. Establishing the framework. UCLA Law Review, 59(6), 1474–1501. Roberts, K. A. (2002). Stalking following the breakup of romantic relationships: Characteristics of stalking former partners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47(5), 1070–1077. Roberts, K. A. (2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 89–114. Robertson, A. A., Liew, H., & Gardner, S. (2011). An evaluation of the narrowing gender gap in DUI arrests. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(4), 1414–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.017 Robertson, K. (2016). The “law and order” of violence against Native women: A Native feminist analysis of the Tribal Law and Order Act. Decolonization-Indigeneity Education & Society, 5(1), 1–23.

Rodriguez, F. S., Curry, T. R., & Lee, G. (2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do effects vary across violent, property, and drug offenses? Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 318–339. Rodriguez, N., & Griffin, M. L. (2005). Gender differences in drug market activities: A comparative assessment of men and women’s participation in the drug market [Data set]. Tempe: Arizona State University. Rodriguez, S. F., & Smithey, M. (1999). Infant and adult homicide. Homicide Studies, 3(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767999003002004 Rogers, H. W. (1922). A digest of laws establishing reformatories for women in the United States. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 13(3), 382–437. Rogers, J. W. (2000). Mary Belle Harris: Warden and rehabilitation pioneer. Women & Criminal Justice, 11(4), 5–27. Rogers, M. (2019). Challenging cisgenderism through trans people’s narratives of domestic violence and abuse. Sexualities, 22(5–6), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716681475 Roka, Z. G., Akech, M., Wanzala, P., Omolo, J., Gitta, S., & Waiswa, P. (2013). Factors associated with obstetric fistulae occurrence among patients attending selected hospitals in Kenya, 2010: A case control study. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth, 13(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-56 Romain, D. M., & Freiburger, T. L. (2016). Chivalry revisited: Gender, race/ethnicity, and offense type on domestic violence charge reduction. Feminist Criminology, 11(2), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115580389

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Pereira, J., Fuentes, S., Gaeta, M., Cunha, J., & Polydoro, S. (2016). Studying while doing time: Understanding inmates’ conceptions of learning. British Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3194 Rosen, L. N., & O’Sullivan, C. S. (2005). Outcomes of custody and visitation petitions when fathers are restrained by protection orders: The case of the New York family courts. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1054–1075. Rosenbaum, B. B. (1938). The sociological basis of the laws relating to women sex offenders in Massachusetts (1620-1860). Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 28(6), 815–846. Rosenbaum, J. L. (1989). Family dysfunction and female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35(1), 31–44. Rosenberg, J., Perlstadt, H., & Phillips, W. R. F. (1993). Now that we are here: Discrimination, disparagement, and harassment at work and the experience of women lawyers. Gender & Society, 7(3), 415–433. Rosenfield, S., Phillips, J., & White, H. (2006). Gender, race, and the self in mental health and crime. Social Problems, 53(2), 161–185. Rosman, K. (2018, October 21). A “sugar date” gone sour. New York Times, p. 1. Ross, L. (1998). Inventing the savage: The social construction of Native American criminality. Austin: University of Texas Press. Ross, L. (2000). Imprisoned Native women and the importance of Native traditions. In J. James (Ed.), States of confinement (pp. 132–144). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Ross, L. (2004). Resistance and survivance: Cultural genocide and imprisoned native women. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 235–247). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ross, R. R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1986). Female offenders: Correctional afterthoughts. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Rotabi, K. S., & Bromfield, N. F. (2012). The decline in intercountry adoptions and new practices of global surrogacy: Global exploitation and human rights concerns. Affilia, 27(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109912444102 Roth, J. J., & King, L. L. (2019). Sex-based predictors of male and female property crime arrest rates: Disadvantage and drug use. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1502724 Roth, R. (2011). Abortion access for imprisoned women: Marginalized medical care for a marginalized group. Women’s Health Issues, 21(3, Suppl.), S14–S15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2011.01.011 Rowe, K. (1985). Limits of the neighborhood justice center: Why domestic violence cases should not be mediated. Emory Law Journal, 34(3–4), 855–910. Rubenstein, B. Y., Toman, E. L., & Cochran, J. C. (2019). Socioeconomic barriers to child contact with incarcerated parents. Justice Quarterly, 1–27. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1606270 Rud, I., van Klaveren, C., Groot, W., & van den Brink, H. M. (2018). What drives the relationship between early criminal involvement

and school dropout? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9326-5 Ruddell, R., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2013). All in the family: The role of the sheriff’s wife in 20th-century mom and pop jails. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.733328 Ruesink, M., & Free, M. D. (2007). Wrongful convictions among women: An exploratory study of a neglected topic. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(4), 1. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v16n04_01 Rush, F. (1980). The best kept secret: Sexual abuse of children. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Russell, D. E. H. (1982). Rape in marriage. New York, NY: Macmillan. Russell, D. E. H. (1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Russell, D. E. H. (1986). The secret trauma: Incest in the lives of girls and women. New York, NY: Basic Books. Russell-Brown, K. (2009). The color of crime (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press. Russo, A. (2003). Recognizing difference: Exploring violence in lesbian relationships. [Review of the book Intimate betrayal: Domestic violence in lesbian relationships, edited by E. Kaschak]. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(1), 86–88. Ryan, J. P., Herz, D., Hernandez, P. M., & Marshall, J. M. (2007). Maltreatment and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in

juvenile justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(8), 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.002 Ryder, J. A., & Brisgone, R. E. (2013). Cracked perspectives: Reflections of women and girls in the aftermath of the crack cocaine era. Feminist Criminology, 8(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085112444899 Rynbrandt, L. J., & Kramer, R. C. (1995). Hybrid nonwomen and corporate violence: The silicone breast implant case. Violence Against Women, 1(3), 206–227. Sabon, L. C. (2018). Force, fraud, and coercion—what do they mean? A study of victimization experiences in a new destination Latino sex trafficking network. Feminist Criminology, 13(5), 456– 476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116676886 Salcido, O., & Menjivar, C. (2012). Gendered paths to legal citizenship: The case of Latin-American immigrants in Phoenix, Arizona. Law & Society Review, 46(2), 335–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00491.x Saleh-Hanna, V. (2008). Colonial systems of control: Criminal justice in Nigeria. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. Saleh-Hanna, V. (2017). Reversing criminology’s White gaze: As Lombroso’s disembodied head peers through a glass jar in a museum foreshadowed by Sara Baartman’s ghost. In J. Z. Wilson, S. Hodgkinson, J. Piche, & K. Walby (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison tourism (pp. 689–711). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Salerno, J. M., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2015). One angry woman: Anger expression increases influence for men, but decreases influence for women, during group deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 39(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000147

Salina, D. D., Lesondak, L. M., Razzano, L. A., & Parenti, B. M. (2011). Addressing unmet needs in incarcerated women with cooccurring disorders. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(4), 365–378. Salwen, J. K., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Adjustment problems and maladaptive relational style: A mediational model of sexual coercion in intimate relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(10), 1969–1988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512471079 Sampson, R. J. (2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7(1), 28–33. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609–627. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sanborn, B. W. (1925). An analysis of the population of the reformatory for women at Framingham, Mass. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 16(1), 127–150. Sanchez, S. E., Alva, A. V., Chang, G. D., Qiu, C. F., Yanez, D., Gelaye, B., & Williams, M. A. (2013). Risk of spontaneous preterm birth in relation to maternal exposure to intimate partner violence during pregnancy in Peru. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 17(3), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1012-0 Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York: New York University Press.

Sanday, P. R. (1996). A woman scorned: Acquaintance rape on trial. Doubleday. Sander, R. H. (2004). Affirmative action in American law schools. Stanford Law Review, 57(2), 367–483. Sandhu, H. S., & Allen, D. E. (1969). Female delinquency: Goal obstruction and anomie. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 6(2), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755618X.1969.tb02299.x Santacruz Giralt, M. (2019). Mujeres en pandillas salvadoreñas y las paradojas de una agencia precaria. Papeles Del Ceic-International Journal on Collective Identity Research, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1387/pceic.19552 Sanz, V. (2017). No way out of the binary: A critical history of the scientific production of sex. Signs, 43(1), 1–27. Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2012). Benevolent sexism as a mean to maintain social inequalities between the genders. Année Psychologique, 112(3), 435–463. Sarri, R. C. (1983). Gender issues in juvenile justice. Crime & Delinquency, 29(3), 381–397. Sarri, R. C. (1987). Unequal protection under the law. In J. FigueiraMcDonough & R. C. Sarri (Eds.), The trapped woman: Catch-22 in deviance and control (pp. 394–427). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Sarver, T. A., Kaheny, E. B., & Szmer, J. J. (2007). The attorney gender gap in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Judicature, 91(5), 238–250.

Satyen, L., Rogic, A. C., & Supol, M. (2019). Intimate partner violence and help-seeking behaviour: A systematic review of cross-cultural differences. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 21(4), 879–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-08039 Saunders, B. E. (2003). Understanding children exposed to violence: Toward an integration of overlapping fields. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250840 Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-defense? Violence and Victims, 1(1), 47– 60. Schafer, N. E., & Dellinger, A. B. (2000). Jailed parents: An assessment. Women & Criminal Justice, 10(4), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v10n04_04 Schaffner, L. (1999). Teenage runaways: Broken hearts and “bad attitudes.” New York, NY: Haworth Press. Schaffner, L. (2004). Capturing girls’ experiences of community violence in the United States. In C. M. Alder & A. Worrall (Eds.), Girls’ violence: Myths and realities (pp. 105–130). Albany: State University of New York Press. Schafran, L. H. (2004). Overwhelming evidence: Gender and race bias in the courts. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 457–471). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Schanzenbach, M. (2005). Racial and sex disparities in prison sentences: The effect of district-level judicial demographics. Journal of Legal Studies, 34(1), 57–92.

Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston, MA: South End Press. Scherer, H. L., & Reyns, B. W. (2019). Visible disabilities and risk of interpersonal victimization. In B. Berry (Ed.), Appearance bias and crime (pp. 243–255). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Scherer, H. L., Snyder, J. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). A gendered approach to understanding intimate partner victimization and mental health outcomes among college students with and without disability. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(3), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.802270 Schiff, M., & Leip, L. (2019). The impact of job expectations, workload, and autonomy on work-related stress among prison wardens in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818802876 Schlosser, L. Z., Safran, D. A., & Sbaratta, C. A. (2010). Reasons for choosing a correction officer career. Psychological Services, 7(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017858 Schlossman, S., & Wallach, S. (1982). The crime of precocious sexuality. In D. Kelly Weisberg (Ed.), Women and the law: The social historical perspective (Vol. 1, pp. 45–84). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Schneider, B. E. (1991). Put up and shut up: Workplace sexual assaults. Gender & Society, 5(4), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124391005004006 Schneider, J. (2008). Fatal colon cancer in a young egg donor: A physician mother’s call for follow-up and research on the long-term

risks of ovarian stimulation. Fertility and Sterility, 90(5), 2016.e12016.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.074 Schneider, J., Lahl, J., & Kramer, W. (2017). Long-term breast cancer risk following ovarian stimulation in young egg donors: A call for follow-up, research and informed consent. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 34(5), 480–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.02.003 Schram, D. D. (1978). Rape. In J. R. Chapman & M. J. Gates (Eds.), The victimization of women (pp. 53–79). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Schroedel, J. R., Frisch, S., Hallamore, N., Peterson, J., & Vanderhorst, N. (1996). The joint impact of race and gender on police department employment practices. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v08n02_04 Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Hawes, S. W., & Davis, M. (2018). Educational and employment patterns in serious adolescent offenders with mental health disorders: The importance of educational attainment. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 45(11), 1660–1687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818784330 Schuck, A. M. (2017). Female officers and community policing: Examining the connection between gender diversity and organizational change. Women & Criminal Justice, 27(5), 341– 362. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1303659 Schuck, A. M. (2018). Women in policing and the response to rape: Representative bureaucracy and organizational change. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117753668 Schuck, A. M., & Rabe-Hemp, C. E. (2007). Women police: The use of force by and against female officers. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(4), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v16n04_05

Shultz, J. W. (2020). Supporting transmasculine survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence: Reflections from peer support facilitation. Sociological Inquiry, 90(2), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12340 Schulz, D. M. (1989). The police matron movement. Police Studies, 12, 115–124. Schulz, D. M. (1993). Policewomen in the 1950s: Paving the way for patrol. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(2), 5–30. Schulz, D. M. (1995). From social worker to crime-fighter: Women in United States municipal policing. Westport, CT: Praeger. Schulz, D. M. (2004a). Breaking the brass ceiling: Women police chiefs and their paths to the top. Westport, CT: Praeger. Schulz, D. M. (2004b). Invisible no more: A social history of women in U.S. policing. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 483–493). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Schulz, D. M. (2004c). A precinct of their own: The New York City women’s precinct, 1921–1923. New York History, 85(1), 39–64. Schulz, D. M. (2009). Women special agents in charge: The first generation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32(4), 675–693. Schulze, C. (2012). The masculine yardstick of physical competence: U.S. police academy fitness tests. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(2), 89–107.

Schulze, C., & Bryan, V. (2017). The gendered monitoring of juvenile delinquents: A test of power-control theory using a retrospective cohort study. Youth & Society, 49(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14523478 Schupak, T. L. (1986). Comment: Women and children first: An examination of the unique needs of women in prison. Golden Gate University Law Review, 16(3), 455–474. Schur, E. M. (1984). Labeling women deviant: Gender, stigma, and social control. New York, NY: Random House. Schwartz, I. M., Jackson-Beeck, M., & Anderson, R. (1984). The “hidden” system of juvenile control. Crime & Delinquency, 30(3), 371–385. Schwartz, J., & Beltz, L. (2018). Trends in female and male drunken driving prevalence over thirty years: Triangulating diverse sources of evidence (1985–2015). Addictive Behaviors, 84, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.03.024 Schwartz, J., Conover-Williams, M., & Clemons, K. (2015). Thirty years of sex stratification in violent crime partnerships and groups. Feminist Criminology, 10(1), 60–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114536765 Schwartz, J., & Rookey, B. D. (2008). The narrowing gender gap in arrests: Assessing competing explanations using self-report, traffic fatality, and official data on drunk driving, 1980-2004. Criminology, 46(3), 637–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00121.x Schwartz, J., & Steffensmeier, D. (2017). Gendered opportunities and risk preferences for offending across the life course. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3(2), 126–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0050-5

Schwartz, J., Steffensmeier, D., & Feldmeyer, B. (2009). Assessing trends in women’s violence via data triangulation: Arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and victim reports. Social Problems, 56(3), 494–525. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.494 Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Schwartz, M. D., & Leggett, M. S. (1999). Bad dates or emotional trauma? The aftermath of campus sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 5(3), 251–271. Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1970). Defenders of order or guardians of human rights. Issues in Criminology, 5(2), 123–157. Schwendinger, J. R., & Schwendinger, H. (1983). Rape and inequality. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Scully, D. (1990). Understanding sexual violence: A study of convicted rapists. Unwin Hyman. Scutt, J. A. (1981). Sexism in criminal law. In S. K. Mukherjee & J. A. Scutt (Eds.), Women and crime (pp. 1–21). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Segrave, J. O., & Hastad, D. N. (1983). Evaluating structural and control models of delinquency causation: A replication and extension. Youth & Society, 14(4), 437–455. Segrave, K. (1995). Policewomen: A history. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Seiler, N. (2003). Identifying racial privilege: Lessons from critical race theory and the law. American Journal of Bioethics, 3(2), 24– 25. Seitz, T. N. (2005). The wounds of savagery. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(1–2), 29–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v16n01_02 Sellers, C. S. (1999). Self-control and intimate violence: An examination of the scope and specification of the general theory of crime. Criminology, 37(2), 375–404. Sered, S., & Norton-Hawk, M. (2008). Disrupted lives, fragmented care: Illness experiences of criminalized women. Women & Health, 48(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630240802131999 Sered, S., & Norton-Hawk, M. (2014). Can’t catch a break: Gender, jail, drugs and the limits of personal responsibility. Oakland: University of California Press. Sered, S., & Norton-Hawk, M. (2019). Women on the institutional circuit: A 9-year qualitative study. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 25(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345818819811 Serran, G., & Firestone, P. (2004). Intimate partner homicide: A review of the male proprietariness and the self-defense theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(1), 1–15. Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Colar, B. K. (2012). The impact of race and rank on the sexual harassment of Black and White men in the U.S. military. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(3), 256– 263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024606 Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., Yap, S. C. Y., & Harrell, Z. A. T. (2014). Sex differences in outcomes and harasser characteristics associated with frightening sexual harassment appraisals. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035449 Sev’er, A. (1997). Recent or imminent separation and intimate violence against women: A conceptual overview and some Canadian examples. Violence Against Women, 3(6), 566–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003006002 Sevigny, E. L. (2009). Excessive uniformity in federal drug sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9064-z Shai, D. (2010). Homicide in the high North: Alaska, 1999-2006. Homicide Studies, 14(2), 132–158. Shange, S. (2019). Black girl ordinary: Flesh, carcerality, and the refusal of ethnography. Transforming Anthropology, 27(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/traa.12143 Shannon, L., Nash, S., & Jackson, A. (2016). Examining intimate partner violence and health factors among rural Appalachian pregnant women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(15), 2622– 2640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515579508 Sharp, S. F. (1999). Gender differences in the impact of incarceration on the children and families of drug offenders. In M. Corsianos & K. A. Train (Eds.), Interrogating social justice: Politics, culture, and identity (pp. 217–246). Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Sharp, S. F. (2003). Where do we go from here? In S. F. Sharp (Ed.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 185–189). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sharp, S. F., & Marcus-Mendoza, S. T. (2001). It’s a family affair: Incarcerated women and their families. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(4), 21–49. Sharp, S. F., Peck, B. M., & Hartsfield, J. (2012). Childhood adversity and substance use of women prisoners: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 202–211. Shaver, F. M. (1993). Prostitution. In E. Adelberg & C. Currie (Eds.), In conflict with the law: Women and the Canadian justice system (pp. 153–173). Vancouver, Canada: Press Gang Publishers. Sheehy, E. (2000). From women’s duty to resist to men’s duty to ask: How far have we come? Canadian Woman Studies, 20(3), 98– 104. Sheiner, M. (1987). Battered women: Scenes from a shelter. Mother Jones, November, 15–19, 43–44. Shelden, R. G. (1981). Sex discrimination in the juvenile justice system. In M. Q. Warren (Ed.), Comparing female and male offenders (pp. 55–72). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Shelton, J. N., & Chavous, T. M. (1999). Black and White college women’s perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 40(7–8), 593–615. Sheridan, L., Davies, G., & Boon, J. (2001). The course and nature of stalking: A victim perspective. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 215–234. Sheridan, L., & Lyndon, A. E. (2012). The influence of prior relationship, gender, and fear on the consequences of stalking victimization. Sex Roles, 66(5–6), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9889-9

Sheridan, L., Scott, A., & Campbell, A. (2019). Perceptions and experiences of intrusive behavior and stalking: Comparing LGBTIQ and heterosexual groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1388–1409. Sherman, L. J. (1973). Psychological view of women in policing. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1(4), 383–394. Sherman, L. J. (1975). Evaluation of policewomen on patrol in a suburban police department. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3(4), 434–438. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261–272. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. Free Press. Shermer, L. O., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Criminal prosecutions: Examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. federal district courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 394–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902856972 Shaw, S. J. (1997). Feminist frontiers IV. In L. Richardson, V. A. Taylor, & N. Whitter (Eds.), Black club women and the creation of the National Association of Colored Women (pp. 499–503). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Shdaimah, C. S., & Leon, C. (2015). “First and foremost they’re survivors”: Selective manipulation, resilience, and assertion among prostitute women. Feminist Criminology, 10(4), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114553832

Shepard, M. F., & Pence, E. L. (1999). Coordinating community response to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Shepp, V., O’Callaghan, E., & Ullman, S. E. (2019). Interactions with offenders post-assault and their impacts on recovery: A qualitative study of sexual assault survivors and support providers. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2019.1660443 Shields, N. M., & Hanneke, C. R. (1983). Battered wives’ reactions to marital rape. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 131–148). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Shiu-Thornton, S., Senturia, K., & Sullivan, M. (2005). “Like a bird in a cage”: Vietnamese women survivors talk about domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(8), 959–976. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505277677 Shjarback, J. A., & Todak, N. (2019). The prevalence of female representation in supervisory and management positions in american law enforcement: An examination of organizational correlates. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(3), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1520674 Shlafer, R. J., Duwe, G., & Hindt, L. (2019). Parents in prison and their minor children: Comparisons between state and national estimates. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519836996 Shlafer, R. J., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730903417052

Shoenberger, N., & Rocheleau, G. C. (2017). Effective parenting and self-control: Difference by gender. Women & Criminal Justice, 27(5), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1261071 Shover, N., & Thompson, C. Y. (1992). Age, differential expectations, and crime desistance. Criminology, 30(1), 89–104. Sichel, J. L., Quint, J., & Smith, M. (1978). Women on patrol: A pilot study of police performance in New York City. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Siddique, J. A. (2016). Age, marital status, and risk of sexual victimization: Similarities and differences across victim–offender relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(15), 2556– 2575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515579507 Siegel, J. A., & Williams, L. M. (2003). The relationship between child sexual abuse and female delinquency and crime: A prospective study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427802239254 Silbert, M. H., & Pines, A. M. (1981). Sexual child abuse as an antecedent to prostitution. Child Abuse & Neglect, 5(4), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(81)90050-8 Silva, J. A., Derecho, D. V., Leong, G. B., & Ferrari, M. M. (2000). Stalking behavior in delusional jealousy. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(1), 77–82. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(5), 572–579.

Simon, L. M. J., Ellwanger, S. J., & Haggerty, J. (2010). Reversing the historical tide of iatrogenic harm: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis of increases in arrests of domestic batterers and rapists. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5–6), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.003 Simon, R. J. (1975). Women and crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Simon-Kerr, J. (2008). Unchaste and incredible: The use of gendered conceptions of honor in impeachment. Yale Law Journal, 117(8), 1854–1898. Simons, M. A. (2010). Sense and sentencing: Our imprisonment epidemic. Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, 25(1), 153–169. Simons, R. L., Miller, M. G., & Aigner, S. M. (1980). Contemporary theories of deviance and female delinquency: An empirical test. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17(1), 42–57. Simpson, G. (1996). The plexiglass ceiling: The careers of black women lawyers. Career Development Quarterly, 45(2), 173–188. Simpson, S., & White, M. (1985). The female guard in the all-male prison. In I. L. Moyer (Ed.), The changing roles of women in the criminal justice system: Offenders, victims, and professionals (pp. 276–300). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Simpson, S. S., Yahner, J. L., & Dugan, L. (2008). Understanding women’s pathways to jail: analysing the lives of incarcerated women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 84–108.

Sims, P. (1976). Women in southern jails. In L. Crites (Ed.), The female offender (pp. 137–148). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Singer, M. I., Bussey, J., Song, L.-Y., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). The psychosocial issues of women serving time in jail. Social Work, 40(1), 103–113. Skaff, J. M. (2013). Violence against women and mental health. In A. Riecher-Rössler & C. García-Moreno (Eds.), Gender-based violence in the Middle-East: A review (pp. 12–23). Basel, Switzerland: Karger. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century. Skogan, W. G. (1976). The victims of crime: Some National Survey findings. In A. L. Guenther (Ed.), Criminal behavior and social systems: Contributions of American sociology (2nd ed., pp. 131– 148). Rand McNally. Slakoff, D. C., & Brennan, P. K. (2019). The differential representation of Latina and Black female victims in front-page news stories: A qualitative document analysis. Feminist Criminology, 14(4), 488–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117747031 Small, M. F. (1993). Female choices: Sexual behavior of female primates. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Smart, C. (1976). Women, crime, and criminology: A feminist critique. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Smart, C. (1982). The criminal justice system and women: Women offenders, victims, workers. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.),

The new female offender: Reality or myth? (pp. 105–116). New York, NY: Clark Boardman. Smart, C. (2002). Feminism and the power of law. London, UK: Routledge. Smith, B. V. (2012). Uncomfortable places, close spaces: Female correctional workers’ sexual interactions with men and boys in custody symposium: Overpoliced and underprotected: Women, race, and criminalization: III. Race, gender, and conditions of confinement. UCLA Law Review, 59(6), 1690–1745. Smith, D. A. (1979). Sex and deviance: An assessment of major sociological variables. Sociological Quarterly, 20(2), 183–195. Smith, D. A., & Klein, J. R. (1984). Police control of interpersonal disputes. Social Problems, 31(4), 468–481. Smith, D. A., & Visher, C. A. (1980). Sex and involvement in deviance/crime: A quantitative review of the empirical literature. American Sociological Review, 45(4), 691–701. Smith, M. D. (1994). Enhancing the quality of survey data on violence against women: A feminist approach. Gender & Society, 8(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124394008001007 Smith, P. (2019). A qualitative examination of the self-medicating hypothesis among female juvenile offenders. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2017.1377673 Smith, P. H., Moracco, K. E., & Butts, J. D. (1998). Partner homicide in context: A population-based perspective. Homicide Studies, 2(4), 400–421.

Smith, S. A., Mays, G. P., Collins, T. C., & Ramaswamy, M. (2019). The role of the community health delivery system in the health and well-being of justice-involved women: A narrative review. Health & Justice, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0092-y Smithey, M. (1998). Infant homicide: Victim/offender relationship and causes of death. Journal of Family Violence, 13(3), 285–297. Smucker, S., Kerber, R. E., & Cook, P. J. (2018). Suicide and additional homicides associated with intimate partner homicide: North Carolina 2004-2013. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 95(3), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0252-8 Snedker, K. A. (2012). Explaining the gender gap in fear of crime: Assessments of risk and vulnerability among New York City residents. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111424405 Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf Snyder, J. K., Fessler, D. M. T., Tiokhin, L., Frederick, D. A., Lee, S. W., & Navarrete, C. D. (2011). Trade-offs in a dangerous world: Women’s fear of crime predicts preferences for aggressive and formidable mates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(2), 127– 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.007 Snyder, Z. K. (2009). Keeping families together: The importance of maintaining mother–child contact for incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice, 19(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450802586869

Snell, T. L. (1995). Correctional populations in the United States, 1993. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Söderström-Anttila, V., Miettinen, A., Rotkirch, A., & NuojuaHuttunen, S. (2016). Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identityrelease and known oocyte donors. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev324 Sodja, Z. (2007). Human rights and U.S. female prisoners. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v29n03_04 Sokoloff, N. J. (2005). Women prisoners at the dawn of the 21st century. Women & Criminal Justice, 16(1/2), 127–137. Solberg, R. L. S., & Bratton, K. A. (2005). Diversifying the federal bench: Presidential patterns. Justice System Journal, 26(2), 119– 133. Soler, H., Vinayak, P., & Quadagno, D. (2000). Biosocial aspects of domestic violence. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25(7), 721–739. Somer, E., & Szwarcberg, S. (2001). Variables in delayed disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), 332–341. Sommerlad, H., & Sanderson, P. (1998). Gender, choice, and commitment: Women solicitors in England and Wales and the struggle for equal status. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Dartmouth. Sommers, I., & Baskin, D. R. (1993). The situational context of violent female offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 136–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002002

Sommers, I., & Baskin, D. R. (1994). Factors related to female adolescent initiation into violent street crime. Youth & Society, 25(4), 468–489. Sorenson, S. B., & Shen, H. (2005). Restraining orders in California: A look at statewide data. Violence Against Women, 11(7), 912– 933. Southworth, C., Finn, J., Dawson, S., Fraser, C., & Tucker, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence Against Women, 13(8), 842–856. Spaulding, E. R. (1918). The value of mental, physical and social studies of delinquent women. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 9(1), 80–97. Spaulding, E. R. (1915). The results of mental and physical examinations of four hundred women offenders—With particular reference to their treatment during commitment. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law & Criminology, 5(5), 704–717. Spelman, W. (2009). Crime, cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 29–77. Spencer, C. C. (1987). Sexual assault: The second victimization. In L. L. Crites & W. L. Hepperle (Eds.), Women, the courts, and equality (pp. 54–73). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Spender, D. (Ed.). (1981). Men’s studies modified: The impact of feminism on the academic disciplines. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 64–86.

Spivak, A. L., Wagner, B. M., Whitmer, J. M., & Charish, C. L. (2014). Gender and status offending: Judicial paternalism in juvenile justice processing. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114531318 Spohn, C. (1990). The sentencing decisions of black and white judges: Expected and unexpected similarities. Law & Society Review, 24(5), 1197–1216. Spohn, C., Beichner, D., & Davis-Frenzel, E. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.” Social Problems, 48(2), 206–235. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1987). The impact of the ethnicity and gender of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology, 25(1), 175–191. Spohn, C., & Spears, J. (1996). The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 649–680. Spohn, C., & Tellis, K. (2012). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 18(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212440020 Spohn, C., Welch, S., & Gruhl, J. (1985). Women defendants in court: The interaction between sex and race in convicting and sentencing. Social Science Quarterly, 66(1), 178–185. Springer, S. A. (2010). Improving healthcare for incarcerated women. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(1), 13–15. Stanko, E. A. (1982). Would you believe this woman? Prosecutorial screening for “credible” witnesses and a problem of justice. In N. H. Rafter & E. A. Stanko (Eds.), Judge, lawyer, victim, thief:

Women, gender roles, and criminal justice (pp. 63–82). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Stanko, E. A. (1985). Intimate intrusions: Women’s experience of male violence. London, UK: Unwin Hyman. Stanko, E. A. (1989). Missing the mark? Policing battering. In J. Hanmer, J. Radford, & E. A. Stanko (Eds.), Women, policing, and male violence: International perspectives (pp. 46–69). New York, NY: Routledge. Stanko, E. A. (1993). The case of fearful women. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v04n01_06 Stanley, A. D. (1998). From bondage to contract: Wage labor, marriage, and the market in the age of slave emancipation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stansfield, R., & Semenza, D. (2019). Licensed firearm dealer availability and intimate partner homicide: A multilevel analysis in sixteen states. Preventive Medicine, 126, 105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.05.027 Stanton, A. M. (1980). When mothers go to jail. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Stark, E. (2004). Insults, injury, and injustice: Rethinking state intervention in domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 10(11), 1302–1330. Stark, E. (2009). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Starr, T. S., & Lavis, T. (2018). Perceptions of revenge pornography and victim blame. International Journal of Cyber Criminology; Thirunelveli, 12(2), 427–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3366179 Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1991). Stability and change in criminal behavior up to age 30. British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), 327– 346. Steadman, H. J., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P. C., & Case, B. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60(6), 761–765. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2009.60.6.761 Steffensmeier, D. (1980). Sex differences in patterns of adult crime, 1965-77: A review and assessment. Social Forces, 58(4), 1080– 1108. Steffensmeier, D. (1993). National trends in female arrests, 1960– 1990: Assessment and recommendations for research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(4), 411–441. Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. A. (1988). Sex disparities in arrests by residence, race, and age: An assessment of the gender convergence/crime hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 5(1), 53–80. Steffensmeier, D., & Cobb, M. J. (1981). Sex differences in urban arrest patterns, 1934-79. Social Problems, 29(1), 37–50. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(3), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9010-2

Steffensmeier, D., Harris, C. T., & Painter-Davis, N. (2015). Gender and arrests for larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement: Conventional or occupational property crime offenders? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.03.004 Steffensmeier, D., & Hebert, C. (1999). Women and men policymakers: Does the judge’s gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants? Social Forces, 77(3), 1163–1196. Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), 411–446. Steffensmeier, D., & Schwartz, J. (2004). Trends in female criminality: Is crime still a man’s world? In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, prisoners, victims, and workers (3rd ed., pp. 95–111). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., & Roche, M. (2013). Gender and twenty-first-century corporate crime: Female involvement and the gender gap in Enron-era corporate frauds. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 448–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413484150 Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., & Ackerman, J. (2005). An assessment of recent trends in girls’ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology, 43(2), 355–405. Steffensmeier, D., & Steffensmeier, R. (1980). Trends in female delinquency: An examination of arrest, juvenile-court, self-report, and field data. Criminology, 18(1), 62–85. Steffensmeier, D., & Streifel, C. (1992). Time-series analysis of the female percentage of arrests for property crimes, 1960–1985: A

test of alternative explanations. Justice Quarterly, 9(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829200091261 Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–797. Steffensmeier, D., Zhong, H., Ackerman, J., Schwartz, J., & Agha, S. (2006). Gender gap trends for violent crimes, 1980 to 2003: A UCR-NCVS comparison. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 72–98. Steinem, G. (1999). Sex-supremacy crimes. Ms. Magazine, 45–47. Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2(3/4), 399–509. Sterk, C. E. (1999). Fast lives: Women who use crack cocaine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (pp. 151–165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Steury, E. H., & Frank, N. (1990). Gender bias and pretrial release: More pieces of the puzzle. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(5), 417– 432. Stevens, T., Morash, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2011). Are girls getting tougher, or are we tougher on girls? Probability of arrest and juvenile court oversight in 1980 and 2000. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 719–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.532146

Stevens, W. G., Calobrace, M. B., Alizadeh, K., Zeidler, K. R., Harrington, J. L., & d’Incelli, R. C. (2018). Ten-year core study data for Sientra’s Food and Drug Administration-approved round and shaped breast implants with cohesive silicone gel. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 141, 7S-19S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004350 Stevenson, B. (2015). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau. Stewart, C. C., Langan, D., & Hannem, S. (2013). Victim experiences and perspectives on police responses to verbal violence in domestic settings. Feminist Criminology, 8(4), 269– 294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113490782 Stichman, A. J., Hassell, K. D., & Archbold, C. A. (2010). Strength in numbers? A test of Kanter’s theory of tokenism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 633–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.036 Stinson, P. M., Todak, N. E., & Dodge, M. (2015). An exploration of crime by policewomen. Police Practice and Research, 16(1), 79– 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.846222 Stohr, M. K., Mays, G. L., Beck, A. C., & Kelley, T. (1998). Sexual harassment in women’s jails. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14(2), 135–155. Stolberg, S. G., & Hulse, C. (2019, April 25). Joe Biden expresses regret to Anita Hill, but she says “I’m sorry” is not enough. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anitahill.html Stollman, D. J. (1993). Jordan v. Gardner: Female prisoners’ rights to be free from random, cross-gender clothed body searches.

Fordham Law Review, 62, 1877. Stotzer, R. L. (2014). Bias crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Global prevalence, impacts, and causes. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 45–64). New York, NY: Springer. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Anchor Press/Doubleday. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(3), 465–479. Strauss, S. M., & Falkin, G. P. (2001). Women offenders who use and deal methamphetamine: Implications for mandated drug treatment. Women and Criminal Justice, 12(4), 77–97. Strebeigh, F. (2009). Equal: Women reshape American law. New York, NY: Norton. Strömwall, L. A., Alfredsson, H., & Strömwall, S. (2013). Rape victim and perpetrator blame and the just world hypothesis: The influence of victim gender and age. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2012.683455 Stroshine, M. S., & Brandl, S. G. (2011). Race, gender, and tokenism in policing: An empirical elaboration. Police Quarterly, 14(4), 344– 365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611111423738 Stuart, D. M. (2005, July 19). Statement of Diane M. Stuart … before the committee on the judiciary United States Senate concerning the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. http://www.justice.gov/archive/ovw/docs/testimony07192005.pdf

Sudderth, L. K. (1998). “It’ll come right back at me”: The interactional context of discussing rape with others. Violence Against Women, 4(5), 572–594. Sufrin, C. (2019). When the punishment is pregnancy: Carceral restriction of abortion in the United States. Cultural Anthropology, 34(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca34.1.06 Sufrin, C., Creinin, M., & Chang, J. (2009). Incarcerated women and abortion provision: A Survey of correctional health providers. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1363/4100609 Sufrin, C., Mosher, B., Beal, L., Clarke, J., & Jones, R. (2017). Incidence of abortion among incarcerated women in the United States: Results from the pregnancy in prison statistics study. Contraception, 96(4), 264–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.07.016 Sullivan, C. M., López-Zerón, G., Bomsta, H., & Menard, A. (2019). “There’s just all these moving parts”: Helping domestic violence survivors obtain housing. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(2), 198– 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-018-0654-9 Sun, I. Y. (2007). Policing domestic violence: Does officer gender matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.004 Sun, I. Y., Payne, B. K., & Wu, Y. (2008). The impact of situational factors, officer characteristics, and neighborhood context on police behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.004 Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1966). Principles of criminology (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Lippincott. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1974). Criminology (9th ed.). New York, NY: Lippincott. Sutherland, K. (2003). From jailbird to jailbait: Age of consent laws and the construction of teenage sexualities. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 9(3), 313–349. Sutton, J. E. (2010). A review of the life-events calendar method for criminological research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1038– 1044. Suzuki, M., Pai, C.-F., & Islam, M. J. (2018). Systematic quantitative literature review on criminological theories in Asia. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417017-9262-9 Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use: The impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth & Society, 34(3), 300–329. Szmer, J., Kaheny, E. B., Sarver, T., & DeCamillis, M. (2013). The impact of attorney gender on decision making in the United States courts of appeals. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 34(1), 72– 100. Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston, MA: Ginn. Tanner, R. (2010). Pregnancy outcomes at the Indiana women’s prison. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 16(3), 216–219.

Tapia, N. D., & Vaughn, M. S. (2010). Legal issues regarding medical care for pregnant inmates. The Prison Journal, 90(4), 417–446. Taxman, F. S., & Cropsey, K. L. (2007). Women and the criminal justice system. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2–3), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v17n02_02 Taylor, C. (2001). The relationship between social and self-control: Tracing Hirschi’s criminological career. Theoretical Criminology, 5(3), 369–388. Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (Eds.). (1975). Critical criminology. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Taylor, I., Young, J., & Walton, P. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Taylor, T. (1996). The prehistory of sex: Four million years of human sexual culture. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Taylor, T. J., Holleran, D., & Topalli, V. (2009). Racial bias in case processing: Does victim race affect police clearance of violent crime incidents? Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 562–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802266462 Teilmann, K. S., & Landry, P. H., Jr. (1981). Gender bias in juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(1), 47– 80. Temin, C. E. (1980). Chivalry and paternalism: Disparities of treatment in the criminal justice system. In S. K. Datesman & F. R. Scarpitti (Eds.), Women, crime, and justice (pp. 255–276). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Terry, K. J., & Freilich, J. D. (2012). Understanding child sexual abuse by Catholic priests from a situational perspective. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.693579 Testa, A. (2019). Examining federal criminal sentencing of whitecollar and common property offenders: The case of embezzlement and larceny. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 681–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417709313 Tester, G. (2008). An intersectional analysis of sexual harassment in housing. Gender & Society, 22(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208317827 Tewksbury, R., & Collins, S. C. (2006). Aggression levels among correctional officers: Reassessing sex differences. The Prison Journal, 86(3), 327–343. Thiara, R. K. (2012). Disabled women and domestic violence: Responding to the experiences of survivors. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Thomas, C. S. (1991). Sex discrimination in a nutshell (2nd ed.). Eagan, MN: West. Thomas, S. Y., & Lanterman, J. L. (2019). A national analysis of shackling laws and policies as they relate to pregnant incarcerated women. Feminist Criminology, 14(2), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117737617 Thomas, W. I. (1967a). Sex and society. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. (Original work published 1907) Thomas, W. I. (1967b). The unadjusted girl: With cases and standpoint for behavior analysis. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

(Original work published 1923) Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2000). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Thuma, E. (2014). Against the “prison/psychiatric state”: Antiviolence feminisms and the politics of confinement in the 1970s. Feminist Formations, 26(2), 26–51. Tierney, K. J. (1982). The battered women movement and the creation of the wife beating problem. Social Problems, 29(3), 207– 220. Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2004). Thin ideals in music television: A source of social comparison and body dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35(1), 48–58. Till, F. J. (1980). Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Tillman, S., Bryant-Davis, T., Smith, K., & Marks, A. (2010). Shattering silence: Exploring barriers to disclosure for African American sexual assault survivors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11(2), 59–70. Timmins, W. M., & Hainsworth, B. E. (1989). Attracting and retaining females in law enforcement: Sex-based problems of women cops in 1988. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 33(3), 197–205. Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2012). Intimate partner violence and companion animal welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal, 90(1–2), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17510813.2011.00843.x

Tisak, M. S., Tisak, J., Baker, E. R., & Graupensperger, S. A. (2019). Relations among victimization, witnessing, and perpetration of aggression: Impact of gender among youth offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(10), 2158–2180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516659658 Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 426–453. Tjaden, P. (2009). Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty year retrospective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(3), 261–278. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998a). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Research Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998b). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Research Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6(2), 142–161. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (2000). Comparing stalking victimization from legal and victim perspectives. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 7–22. Tobias, C. (1990). Engendering law faculties. University of Miami Law Review, 44(5), 1143–1158.

Tong, R. (1984). Women, sex, and the law. Rowman & Allanheld. Topitzes, J., Mersky, J. P., & Reynolds, A. J. (2011). Child maltreatment and offending behavior: Gender-specific effects and pathways. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(5), 492–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811398578 Topitzes, J., Mersky, J. P., & Reynolds, A. J. (2012). From child maltreatment to violent offending: An examination of mixed-gender and gender-specific models. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(12), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511433510 Torstensson, M. (1990). Female delinquents in a birth cohort: Tests of some aspects of control theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(1), 101–115. Tosh, S. (2019). Drugs, crime, and aggravated felony deportations: Moral panic theory and the legal construction of the “criminal alien.” Critical Criminology, 27(2), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09446-8 Townsey, R. D. (1982a). Black women in American policing: An advancement display. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(6), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(82)90078-2 Townsey, R. D. (1982b). Female patrol officers. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women (3rd ed., pp. 413–426). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Tracy, P. E., Kempf-Leonard, K., & Abramoske-James, S. (2009). Gender differences in delinquency and juvenile justice processing: Evidence from national data. Crime & Delinquency, 55(2), 171– 215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708330628

Tranchese, A. (2018). Covering rape: How the media determine how we understand sexualised violence. Gender and Language, 13(2), 174–201. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.34445 Travis, C. B. (Ed.). (2003). Evolution, gender, and rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Travis, J. (2006). Defining a research agenda on women and justice in the age of mass incarceration. Women and Criminal Justice, 17(2–3), 127–136. Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Bertrand, L., Leblanc, M., Beauchesne, H., Boileau, H., & David, L. (1992). Parent and child training to prevent early onset of delinquency: The Montréal longitudinal experimental study. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence (pp. 117–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Triplett, R., Mullings, J. L., & Scarborough, K. E. (1999). Examining the effect of work-home conflict on work-related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00066-X Triplett, R., & Myers, L. B. (1995). Evaluating contextual patterns of delinquency: Gender-based differences. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500092571 Tuerkheimer, D. (2012). Judging sex. Cornell Law Review, 97(6), 1461–1504. Tuerkheimer, D. (2017). Incredible women: Sexual violence and the credibility discount. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166(1), 1–58.

Turney, K., & Wakefield, S. (2019). Criminal justice contact and inequality. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2019.5.1.01 Uggen, C. (2000). Class, gender, and arrest: An intergenerational analysis of workplace power and control. Criminology, 38(3), 835– 862. Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 64–92. Uggen, C., & Thompson, M. (2013, June 26). How welfare reform drove up female arrest rates. Paper presented at Institute for Research on Poverty Summer Workshop, Madison, WI. http://users.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Thompson_Uggen_WelfareRefor m_WP.pdf Ullman, S. E. (2002). Rape avoidance: Self-protection strategies for women. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 137–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ullman, S. E. (2007a). Mental health services seeking in sexual assault victims. Women & Therapy, 30(1–2), 61–84. Ullman, S. E. (2007b). A 10-year update of “review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806297117 Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ullman, S. E., & Knight, R. A. (1992). Fighting back: Women’s resistance to rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2006). Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offenses. Criminology, 44(3), 631–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00059.x Ulmer, J. T., Eisenstein, J., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Trial penalties in federal sentencing: Extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27(4), 560–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902998063 Ulmer, J. T., Kurlychek, M. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 427–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427807305853 Umbreit, M. S. (1996). Restorative justice: International perspectives. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative justice through mediation: The impact of programs in four Canadian provinces (pp. 373–386). Criminal Justice Press. Updegrove, A. H., Muftic, L. R., & Niebuhr, N. (2019). Criminal justice system outcomes for buyers, sellers, and facilitators of commercial sex in Houston, Texas. Crime & Delinquency, 65(11), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718787473 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics online (31st ed.). http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_1.html#1_d

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2018 (Report No. 1083). https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womensearnings/2018/home.htm U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Current population survey, 1961–2005. Annual social and economic supplements. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice. (2019). Crime in the United States 2018: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-theu.s.-2018 U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (1993). Federal Bureau of Prisons annual statistical report calendar year 1992. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2000, April). Federal Bureau of Prisons quick facts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.bop.gov/fact0598.html U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2005, October). Federal Bureau of Prisons quick facts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.gov.bop/news/quick.jsp#5 U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2013, May). Federal Bureau of Prisons quick facts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society: A report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Valdes, F., Culp, J. M., & Harris, A. P. (Eds.). (2002). Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Valente, R. L., Hart, B. J., Zeya, S., & Malefyt, M. (2001). The Violence Against Women Act of 1994. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 279–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Valentine, J. L., Sekula, L. K., Cook, L. J., Campbell, R., Colbert, A., & Weedn, V. W. (2019). Justice denied: Low submission rates of sexual assault kits and the predicting variables. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(17), 3547–3573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681881 Van Cleve, N. G. (2016). Crook County: Racism and injustice in America’s largest criminal court. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Vander Ven, T. (2003). Working mothers and juvenile delinquency. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing. van Eijk, G. (2017). Between risk and resistance: Gender socialization, equality, and ambiguous norms in fear of crime and safekeeping. Feminist Criminology, 12(2), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115605905 Van Gundy, K., Schieman, S., Kelley, M. S., & Rebellon, C. J. (2005). Gender role orientations and alcohol use among Moscow and Toronto adults. Social Science & Medicine, 61(11), 2317– 2330. Van Ochten, M. (1993). Legal issues and the female offender. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), Female offenders (pp. 31–36). Laurel, MD: Author.

van Schellen, M., Poortman, A.-R., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2012). Partners in crime? Criminal offending, marriage formation, and partner selection. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(4), 545–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811414197 Van Slyke, S. R., & Bales, W. D. (2013). Gender dynamics in the sentencing of white-collar offenders. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(2), 168–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2012.729707 Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Wolfe, N. T. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28(4), 472–500. Vaughan, T. J., Pollock, J., & Vandiver, D. M. (2015). Sex differences in arrest for juvenile assaults. Violence and Gender, 2(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2014.0028 Vaughns, K. L. (2003). Women of color in law teaching: Shared identities, different experiences. Journal of Legal Education, 53(4), 496–504. Vedder, C. B., & Somerville, D. B. (1970). The delinquent girl. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Ventura, L. A., & Davis, G. (2005). Domestic violence: Court case conviction and recidivism. Violence Against Women, 11(2), 255– 277. Viglione, J., Hannon, L., & DeFina, R. (2011). The impact of light skin on prison time for black female offenders. The Social Science Journal, 48(1), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2010.08.003

Vilcica, E. R. (2012). Nature and consequences of dismissals: Implications for public safety and crime prevention in criminal courts in America. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.01.006 Villalón, R. (2010). Violence against Latina immigrants: Citizenship, inequality, and community. New York: New York University Press. Villanueva, C. K., From, S. B., & Lerner, G. (2009). Mothers, infants and imprisonment: A national look at prison nurseries and community-based alternatives (pp. 1–39). New York, NY: Women’s Prison Association. Visano, L. A. (2002). A critical critique of the cultures of control: A case study of cyber rape. In J. F. Hodgson & D. S. Kelley (Eds.), Sexual violence: Policies, practices, and challenges in the United States and Canada (pp. 51–71). Westport, CT: Praeger. Visher, C. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21(1), 5–28. Vitale, A. T. (1980). Inmate abortions: The right to government funding behind the prison gates. Fordham Law Review, 48(4), 550–567. Vittes, K. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (2008). Restraining orders among victims of intimate partner homicide. Injury Prevention, 14(3), 191– 195. Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimiized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 107–124. Voth Schrag, R. J., & Edmond, T. (2017). School sabotage as a form of intimate partner violence: Provider perspectives. Affilia, 32(2),

171–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109916689785 Vukson, T. M. (1987). Inmate abortion funding in California: A constitutional analysis. California Western Law Review, 24(1), 107–126. Vyleta, D. (2006). Book review: Criminal woman, the prostitute, and the normal woman. European History Quarterly, 36(1), 157–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/026569140603600134 Wadsworth, P., Kothari, C., Lubwama, G., Brown, C. L., & Frank Benton, J. (2018). Health and health care from the perspective of intimate partner violence adult female victims in shelters: Impact of IPV, unmet needs, barriers, experiences, and preferences. Family & Community Health, 41(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000186 Wadsworth, T. (2010). Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of the influence of immigration on changes in violent crime between 1990 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 531–553. Wald, E. (2010). Glass ceilings and dead ends: Professional ideologies, gender stereotypes, and the future of women lawyers at large law firms. Fordham Law Review, 78(5), 2245–2288. Wald, E. (2012a). In-house myths symposium: The changing role and nature of in-house and general counsel. Wisconsin Law Review, 2012(2), 407–462. Wald, E. (2012b). Smart growth: The large law firm in the twenty-first century. Fordham Law Review, 80, 2867–2916. Wald, E. (2014). Biglaw identity capital: Pink and blue, black and white colloquium: The challenge of equity in the legal profession:

An international and comparative perspective. Fordham Law Review, 83(5), 2509–2556. Wald, E., Snow, E., Van Hook, N., & Haberman, H. (2012). Looking beyond gender: Women’s experiences at law school. Tulsa Law Review, 48(1), 27–62. Wald, J. M., & Losen, D. J. (Eds.). (2003). Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. A walk in Chappaquiddick. (1969, August 11). Newsweek, 74(6), 20– 22. Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Walker, L. E. (1983). The battered woman syndrome study. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 31–48). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Walker, L. E. (1989). Terrifying love: Why battered women kill and how society responds. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Wallace, J. E. (2001). The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 366–391. Wallace, J. E., & Kay, F. M. (2009). Are small firms more beautiful or is bigger better? A study of compensating differentials and law firm internal labor markets. Sociological Quarterly, 50(3), 474–496. Wallace, J. E., & Kay, F. M. (2012). Tokenism, organizational segregation, and coworker relations in law firms. Social Problems, 59(3), 389–410.

Wallace, H. (1995). A prosecutor’s guide to stalking. The Prosecutor, 29(1), 26–30. Walls, M., Hartshorn, K. J. S., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2013). North American Indigenous adolescent substance use. Addictive Behaviors, 38(5), 2103–2109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.01.004 Walsh, A. (1987). The sexual stratification hypothesis and sexual assault in light of the changing conceptions of race. Criminology, 25(1), 153–173. Walsh, J. A., Krienert, J. L., & Comens, C. L. (2016). Examining 19 years of officially reported child abduction incidents (1995–2013): Employing a four category typology of abduction. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1129690 Walsh, K., DiLillo, D., & Scalora, M. J. (2011). The cumulative impact of sexual revictimization on emotion regulation difficulties: An examination of female inmates. Violence Against Women, 17(8), 1103–1118. Walters, S. (1992). Attitudinal and demographic differences between male and female corrections officers: A study in three midwestern prisons. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18(1–2), 173–190. Wang, A. Y., & Pannell, M. (2019). Understanding and managing intimate partner violence in the pediatric primary care setting: A review. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 31(5), 683–690. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000818 Wang, T. (2019). Fewer women doing more crime: How has the onechild policy affected female crime in China? Sociological Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1581035

Ward, D. A., & Kassebaum, G. G. (1965). Women’s prison: Sex and social structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Ward, T., & Siegert, R. (2002). Rape and evolutionary psychology: A critique of Thornhill and Palmer’s theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(2), 145–168. Warner, R. L., Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1989). Conditions associated with the advent of representative bureaucracy: The case of women in policing. Social Science Quarterly, 70(3), 562– 578. Warner, T. D. (2010). Violent acts and injurious consequences: An examination of competing hypotheses about intimate partner violence using agency-based data. Journal of Family Violence, 25(2), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9282-z Warr, M. (1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly, 65(3), 681–702. Warren, M. A., Donaldson, S. I., Lee, J. Y., & Donaldson, S. I. (2019). Reinvigorating research on gender in the workplace using a positive work and organizations perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(4), 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12206 Warren, P., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. (2012). The imprisonment penalty for young black and Hispanic males. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810397945 Warshaw, R., & Koss, M. P. (1988). I never called it rape: The Ms. Report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acquaintance rape. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Washington, P. A. (2001). Disclosure patterns of black female sexual assault survivors. Violence Against Women, 7(11), 1254–1283. Watkins, A. M., & Melde, C. (2018). Gangs, gender, and involvement in crime, victimization, and exposure to violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.02.005 Wattanaporn, K. A., & Holtfreter, K. (2014). The impact of feminist pathways research on gender-responsive policy and practice. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113519491 Watts, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 271–299. Watts, S. J., & Iratzoqui, A. (2019). Gender, child maltreatment, and delinquency. Victims & Offenders, 14(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1557091 Websdale, N. (1995). Rural woman abuse: The voices of Kentucky women. Violence Against Women, 1(4), 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801295001004002 Websdale, N. (1996). Predators. Women & Criminal Justice, 7(2), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v07n02_04 Websdale, N., & Johnson, B. (1997). The policing of domestic violence in rural and urban areas: The voices of battered women in Kentucky. Policing and Society, 6(4), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1997.9964759

Webster, J., Chandler, J., & Battistutta, D. (1996). Pregnancy outcomes and health care use: Effects of abuse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 174(2), 760–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70461-1 Wechsler, H., Kuh, G., & Davenport, A. E. (1996). Fraternities, sororities, and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 33(4), 260–279. Weir, B. W., Bard, R. S., O’Brien, K., Casciato, C. J., & Stark, M. J. (2008). Violence against women with HIV risk and recent criminal justice system involvement: Prevalence, correlates, and recommendations for intervention. Violence Against Women, 14(8), 944–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208320901 Weisberg, D. K. (Ed.). (1982). Women and the law: The social historical perspective. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Weisburd, D., & Waring, E. J. (2001). White-collar crime and criminal careers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weisburd, D., Wheeler, S., Waring, E., & Bode, N. (1991). Crimes of the middle classes: White-collar offenders in the federal courts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Weiser, J. R. (2002). The Fourth Amendment right of female inmates to be free from cross-gender pat-frisks. Seton Hall Law Review, 33(1), 31–66. Weiss, K. G. (2010). Male sexual victimization examining men’s experiences of rape and sexual assault. Men and Masculinities, 12(3), 275–298. Weiss, K. G. (2011). Neutralizing sexual victimization: A typology of victims’ non-reporting accounts. Theoretical Criminology, 15(4),

445–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480610391527 Weissman, M. M., & Klerman, G. L. (1979). Gender and disordered behavior: Sex differences in psychopathology. In E. S. Gomberg & V. Franks (Eds.), Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression (pp. 381–425). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel. Weissman, M. M., & Paykel, E. S. (1974). The depressed woman: A study of social relationships. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Weitzman, A., Cowan, S., & Walsh, K. (2017). Bystander interventions on behalf of sexual assault and intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(7–8), 1694– 1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696873 Weldon, S. L. (2018). Gender and global justice: Lu’s Justice and reconciliation in world politics. Ethics & Global Politics, 11(1), 31– 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2018.1507389 Wellisch, J., Prendergast, M. L., & Anglin, M. D. (1996). Needs assessment and services for drug-abusing women offenders: Results from a national survey of community-based treatment programs. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(1), 27–60. Wells, E. C. (2012). “But most of all, they fought together”: Judicial attributions for sentences in convicting battered women who kill. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(3), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312448932 Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., Angel, E., Matz, A. K., & Amato, N. (2009). Predictors of job stress among staff in juvenile correctional facilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808329334

Wentz, E. A. (2019). Funneled through or filtered out: An examination of police and prosecutorial decision-making in adult sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219890419 Wertsch, T. L. (1998). Walking the thin blue line: Policewomen and tokenism today. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(3), 23–61. Wexler, J. G., & Logan, D. D. (1983). Sources of stress among women police officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11(1), 46–53. Whaley, R. B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender & Society, 15(4), 531–555. Whalley, E. (2019). The “bait and switch” of sexual assault response: Expanded carceral power at a rape crisis center. Affilia, 0886109919890706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109919890706 Whalley, E., & Belknap, J. (2013). Family and friend reeactions to sexual assault survivors. In Sexual violence and abuse: An encyclopedia of prevention, impacts, and recovery (Vol. 2, pp. 473–476). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Whalley, E., & Hackett, C. (2017). Carceral feminisms: The abolitionist project and undoing dominant feminisms. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(4), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2017.1383762 Wheeler, P. A., Trammell, R., Thomas, J., & Findlay, J. (1989). Persephone chained: Parity or equality in women’s prisons? The Prison Journal, 69(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558906900112

White, M. D., Cooper, J. A., Saunders, J., & Raganella, A. J. (2010). Motivations for becoming a police officer: Re-assessing officer attitudes and job satisfaction after six years on the street. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.022 Whitson, M. H. (1997). Sexism and sexual harassment: Concerns of African American women of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Violence Against Women, 3(4), 382–400. Whittier, N. (2016). Carceral and intersectional feminism in Congress: The Violence Against Women Act, discourse, and policy. Gender & Society, 30(5), 791–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216653381 Widom, C. S. (1989a). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: research design and findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(3), 355–367. Widom, C. S. (1989b). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2704995 Widom, C. S. (1995). Victims of child sexual abuse—Later criminal consequences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/abuse.pdf Widom, C. S., Fisher, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). A prospective examination of criminal career trajectories in abused and neglected males and females followed up into middle adulthood. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(3), 831–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9356-7 Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the “cycle of violence.” Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184894.pdf

Wiist, W. H., & McFarlane, J. (1998). Utilization of police by abused pregnant Hispanic women. Violence Against Women, 4(6), 677– 693. Wilbanks, W. (1986). Are female felons treated more leniently by the criminal justice system? Justice Quarterly, 3(4), 517–529. Wilczynski, A. (1995). Child-killing by parents: Social, legal and gender issues. In R. E. Dobash, P. R. Dobash, & L. Noaks (Eds.), Gender and crime (pp. 167–180). Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press. Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the female professions. Social Problems, 39(3), 253–267. Williams, J. C. (2012). Jumpstarting the stalled gender revolution: Justice Ginsburg and reconstructive feminism. Hastings Law Journal, 63(5), 1267–1296. Williams, K. M. (1981). Few convictions in rape cases: Empirical evidence concerning some alternative explanations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9(1), 29–39. Williams, L. (1981). Violence against women. Black Scholar, 12(1), 18–24. Williams, L. M., Siegel, J. A., & Pomeroy, J. J. (2000). Validity of women’s self-reports of documented child sexual abuse. In A. A. Stone (Ed.), The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 211–226). Lawrence Erlbaum. Williams, M., & Polman, E. (2015). Is it me or her? How gender composition evokes interpersonally sensitive behavior on collaborative cross-boundary projects. Organization Science, 26(2), 334–355.

Willis, G. M. (2018). Why call someone by what we don’t want them to be? The ethics of labeling in forensic/correctional psychology. Psychology Crime & Law, 24(7), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1421640 Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 3–16. Wilson, M. J. B. (1992). Will women judges really make a difference? Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30(1), 13–25. Windshuttle, E. (1981). Women, crime, and punishment. In S. K. Mukherjee & J. A. Scutt (Eds.), Women and Crime (pp. 31–50). Allen & Unwin. Wing, A. K. (1997). Critical race feminism: A reader. New York: New York University Press. Wing, A. K. (Ed.). (2003). Critical race feminism: A reader (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press. Wing, A. K., & Willis, C. A. (1997). Sisters in the hood: Beyond Bloods and Crips. In A. K. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism: A reader (pp. 243–254). New York: New York University Press. Winkle, J. W., III, & Wedeking, J. (2003). Perceptions and experiences of gender fairness in Mississippi courts. Judicature, 87(3), 126–134. Wodda, A., & Panfil, V. R. (2018). Insert sexy title here: Moving toward a sex-positive criminology. Feminist Criminology, 13(5), 583–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117693088

Wolfers, J., Leonhardt, D., & Quealy, K. (2015a, April 20). 1.5 Million missing black men. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missingblack-men.html Wolfers, J., Leonhardt, D., & Quealy, K. (2015b, April 20). The methodology: 1.5 Million missing black men. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/upshot/the-methodology-1-5million-missing-black-men.html Women’s Prison Association. (2009). Mothers, infants and imprisonment: A national look at prison nurseries and communitybased alternatives. New York, NY: Author. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/womens_pris on_assoc_report_on_prison_nurseries_and_community_alternativ es_2009.pdf Wonders, N. A., & Danner, M. J. E. (2015). Gendering climate change: A feminist criminological perspective. Critical Criminology, 23(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9290-7 Woods, J. B. (2015). The birth of modern criminology and gendered constructions of homosexual criminal identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(2), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.969053 Woods, J. B. (2017). LGBT identity and crime. California Law Review, 105(3), 667–733. https://doi.org/10.15779/z389w08z24 Wooldredge, J. D., & Masters, K. (1993). Confronting problems faced by pregnant inmates in state prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 39(2), 195–203. Worden, R. E., & Pollitz, A. A. (1984). Police arrests in domestic disturbances: A further look. Law & Society Review, 18(1), 105– 119.

Workman-Stark, A. L. (2017). Inclusive policing from the inside out. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Worrall, A. (1990). Offending women: Female lawbreakers and the criminal justice system. London, UK: Routledge. Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1983). Reactions to victims of life crises. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support (pp. 463–489). The Hague, Netherlands: Martines Niijhoff. Wotherspoon, T., & Hansen, J. (2019). Racial profiling and reconciliation. In B. Berry (Ed.), Appearance bias and crime (pp. 75–93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wrangham, R. W., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Wriggins, J. (1983). Rape, racism, and the law. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 6, 103–141. Wright, C. V., & Johnson, D. M. (2012). Encouraging legal help seeking for victims of intimate partner violence: The therapeutic effects of the civil protection order. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(6), 675–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21754 Wright, E. M., & Fagan, A. A. (2013). The cycle of violence in context: Exploring the moderating roles of neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms. Criminology, 51(2), 217–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12003 Wright, E. M., Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E. J., & Bauman, A. (2012). Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1612–1632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812451088

Wright, J. P., & Boisvert, D. (2009). What biosocial criminology offers criminology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(11), 1228–1240. Wright, K. N., & Saylor, W. G. (1991). Male and female employees’ perceptions of prison work: Is there a difference? Justice Quarterly, 8(4), 505–524. Wu, J., & Spohn, C. (2010). Interdistrict disparity in sentencing in three U.S. district courts. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 290–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707309997 Wu, Y. (2012). Scaling the wall and running the mile: The role of physical-selection procedures in the disparate impact narrative. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1195–1238. Wyatt, G. E., Newcomb, M. D., & Riederle, M. H. (1993). Sexual abuse and consensual sex: Women’s developmental patterns and outcomes. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. X, L. (1999). Accomplishing the impossible: An advocate’s notes from the successful campaign to make marital and date rape a crime in all 50 U.S. states and other countries. Violence Against Women, 5(9), 1064–1081. Xie, H., Drabick, D. A. G., & Chen, D. (2011). Developmental trajectories of aggression from late childhood through adolescence: Similarities and differences across gender. Aggressive Behavior, 37(5), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20404 Xie, M., Heimer, K., & Lauritsen, J. L. (2012). Violence against women in U.S. metropolitan areas: Changes in women’s status and risk, 1980-2004. Criminology, 50(1), 105–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00245.x

Xie, M., & Lynch, J. P. (2017). The effects of arrest, reporting to the police, and victim services on intimate partner violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(3), 338–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816678035 Yates, H. M. (2002). Margaret Moore: African American feminist leader in corrections. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(4), 9–26. Yescavage, K. (1999). Teaching women a lesson: Sexually aggressive and sexually nonaggressive men’s perceptions of acquaintance and date rape. Violence Against Women, 5(7), 796– 812. Ylang, N., & Holtfreter, K. (2019). The decision to arrest in sexual assault case processing: A test of Black’s theory of the behavior of law. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219862632 Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5(2), 178–192. Yokoyama, M. (2010). Measures against human trafficking in Japan. Women & Criminal Justice, 20(1–2), 27–39. Yoo, H., & Franke, W. D. (2011). Stress and cardiovascular disease risk in female law enforcement officers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 84(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-010-0548-9 Yoon, E., Funk, R. S., & Kropf, N. P. (2010). Sexual harassment experiences and their psychological correlates among a diverse sample of college women. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(1), 8–18.

Young, C. L. (2009). Childbearing, childrearing, and Title VII: Parental leave policies at large American law firms. Yale Law Journal, 118(6), 1182–1230. Young, M. (1991). Survivors of crime. In D. Sank & D. I. Caplan (Eds.), To be a victim: Encounters with crime and injustice (pp. 27– 42). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Young, V. D. (1986). Gender expectations and their impact on black female offenders and victims. Justice Quarterly Justice Quarterly, 3(3), 305–327. Young, V. D. (1992). Fear of victimization and victimization rates among women: A paradox? Justice Quarterly, 9(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829200091461 Young, V. D. (1994). Race and gender in the establishment of juvenile institutions: The case of the South. The Prison Journal, 74(2), 244–265. Yousuf, S., McLone, S., Mason, M., Snow, L., Gall, C., & Sheehan, K. (2017). Factors associated with intimate partner homicide in Illinois, 2005-2010: Findings from the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 83(5), S217–S221. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001578 Yu, H. H. (2015). An examination of women in federal law enforcement: An exploratory analysis of the challenges they face in the work environment. Feminist Criminology, 10(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114545824 Yu, H. H. (2017). Post-Executive Order 13583: A reexamination of occupational barriers in federal law enforcement. Women & Criminal Justice, 27(4), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1256253

Yu, H. H. (2018). An exploratory analysis of the strategies women employ to cope with the challenges they face in federal law enforcement. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(4), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2018.1443871 Yu, H. H., & Lee, D. (2020). Gender and public organization: A quasi-experimental examination of inclusion on experiencing and reporting wrongful behavior in the workplace. Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019836196 Yu, Q., Stasny, E. A., & Li, B. (2008). Bayesian models to adjust for response bias in survey data for estimating rape and domestic violence rates from the NCVS. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(2), 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-aoas160 Zaitzow, B. H., & West, A. D. (2003). Doing time in the shadow of death: Women prisoners and HIV/AIDS. In S. F. Sharp (Ed.), The incarcerated woman: Rehabilitative programming in women’s prisons (pp. 73–90). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zatz, M. S. (1984). Race, ethnicity, and determinate sentencing: A new dimension to an old controversy. Criminology, 22(2), 147– 171. Zeng, Z. (2019). Jail inmates 2017. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Zimmer, L. (1986). Women guarding men. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zimmer, L. (1987). How women reshape the prison guard role. Gender & Society, 1(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124387001004005

Zimmer, L. (1988). Tokenism and women in the workplace: The limits of gender-neutral theory. Social Problems, 35(1), 64–77. Zimmer, L. (1989). Solving women’s employment problems in corrections: Shifting the burden to administrators. Women & Criminal Justice, 1(1), 55–79. Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood context and the gender gap in adolescent violent crime. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 958–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410386688 Zingraff, M., & Thomson, R. (1984). Differential sentencing of women and men in the USA. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 12(4), 401–413. Zorza, J. (1992). The criminal law of misdemeanor domestic violence, 1970-1990. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83(1), 46–72. Zuberi, T. (2001). Thicker than blood: How racial statistics lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Zupan, L. L. (1986). Gender-related differences in correctional officers’ perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14(4), 349–361. Zupan, L. L. (1992). The progress of women correctional officers in all-male prisons. The Changing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System, 323–343. Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., & Rossman, S. B. (2012). Does recent physical and sexual victimization affect further substance use for adult drug-involved offenders? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(12), 2348–2372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511433517

• INDEX • Note: Figures and Tables are indicated by ‘f’ and ‘t’ following the page number. Abolitionist feminism, 8, 393 Adaptation, concept of, 30 The Adolescent Girl in Conflict, 27 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), 173 Adult crime processing CLS, presence of gender bias, 134–142 empirical findings, 134–145 gender differences, 142–145 violent and property offenses drug offending, 143–144 homicide, 144 prostitution/sex work, 144–145 Adultification, 98 Adult sexual assault, 151 Adverse life events theories

cycle of violence theory (CVT), 63, 64–66 expanding LCT to girls and women, 68–69 focus on boys and young men, 67–68 life course theory (LCT), 63, 66–67 African Americans multiple jeopardies (marginalizations), 4 as super-predators, 134 Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, 202–203 Age and juvenile delinquency, 89–90 career criminals, 89–90 status offenses, 90 Age-desistance phenomenon, 31 Agency and resiliency, 55–56 balancing sexism and misogyny, 55 self-determination, 55 study of maternal identity and offending, 55 Aggression and assault, 109–110 Alcohol, 100

American Bar Association (ABA), 368 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 177 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), 212 Anomie (state of normlessness) theory, 34 Anti-carceral feminism, 6, 393 Anti-trafficking laws, 211 Asian Americans, 124 Assault, 220 Associates, 373 Attempted rape, 224 Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 183 At the Dark End of the Street, 207 Attorneys, women experiences of, 371 gender by race in law firms, 2019, 375t gender differences in job performance, 371–372 gendered income gaps, 379–380 hiring, job placements, retention, and attrition, 373–377 marital and family status for lawyers, 377–379 mentoring and job satisfaction, 380–381 number of, 370–371

sanctions against lawyers, 381 Baby boomers, 85 Battered Wives, 270 Battered woman, 123, 194, 204, 263, 270 The Battered Woman, 270 Benevolent sexism, 13, 123, 201 Benign sexism, 13 “BigLaw,” 375 Biological determinism, 24 Biosocial and evolutionary (psychological) theories (BSETs), 28–34 doing gender as hypermasculinity, 29 to gender-based abuses, 32–34 Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA), 31–32 natural selection, 30, 31 sexist contexts, 29 sexual abuse, 29–31 U.S. federal sentencing data, 29 Black Feminist Thought, 16 Black womanhood, 17

Blame survivors, 202 Blameworthiness, 122 Blood alcohol content (BAC) level, 87 Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), 313 Bradwell v. Illinois, 365–366 Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIAALCL), 213 Breast implant GBA, 211–213 Bride burning, 197 Brown’s (1997) phases, Europe entry, 334 integration stage, 334 “krabbenmand” or “crab basket” effect, 334 reform, 334 separated-restricted, 334 take-off, 334 tip-over, 334 Burglary, 104 Campus rape, 234–235 Capsular contracture, 212

Carceral feminism, 8, 18–19, 246 Career criminals, 89 CCR condition, 403 Child abductions/kidnappings, 110–111 Childhood aggression, 62 Child sexual abuse (CSA), 151, 231–233 definition, 231 lifetime prevalence, 232t risk of, 233 social problem, 256 social service agencies, 231 Child Welfare Services (CWS), 133 Chivalry (or paternalism) hypothesis blameworthiness, 122 class, age, mental health, and employment status, 146–147 corollary hypotheses, 122 corollary selectivity hypothesis, 145–151 differential discretion hypothesis, 122 extralegal and cultural variables, 145–151 familied status, 148–149

gender discrimination in CLS, 121–122 marital status, 148 practical constraints and consequences, 123 race/ethnicity, 145–146 remains complicated, 145–149 risk, 123 selectivity hypothesis, 122 sentencing “mitigation teams,” 122–123 sexual minority status (SMS), 147 typicality hypothesis, 122 The Chosen Ones: Black Men and the Politics of Redemption, 6 Citizen, 361 Civil wars, impacts of, 203 Classism, 7 Clinton, Bill, 7 Clitoridectomy, 197 Coercion, 220 Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life, 260 College sexual abuse acquaintance rapes, 233–234

African American fraternities, 235 campus rape, 234–235 date rape studies, 235 gang rapes, 234 marital rapes, 237–238 serial sex offenders, 237 sexual assault kits, 237 sexual victimization, 235–236 violence or weapon, 233 Coloniality, penal, 123 Color, women of amazon, 17 mammy, 17 seductress, 17 sinister sapphire, 17 Community-coordinated responses (CCRs) model, 401, 402– 403 Complicated Lives: Girls, Parents, Drugs, and Juvenile Justice, 98 Consent, 220 Contrapower sexual harassment, 239

Controlling images of Black women, United States jezebels, 16–17 mammies, 16 matriarchs, 16 welfare mothers, 17 Co-offending, 88–89 Corporate and environmental GBA, 211–215 Corporate or organizational victimization, 211 Court process attrition of sexual assault cases, 252, 253f court officials’ responses to sexual abuse cases, 253–255 intimate partner abuse and stalking “curtain rule,” 294 harshness or leniency, 294 men and women defendants, 295 no-drop policies, 296 past victimizations, 294–295 pro-arrest jurisdiction, 295 risk of reoffending, 295

“rule of thumb,” 294 sexual abuse survivors’ goals and agency, 252–253 survivors’ characteristics and behaviors, 243–244 Crack addictions, 102 income generation, street-level economy, 101 -using women hookers, 102 hustlers, 102 older struggling rookies, 102 queens of the scene, 102 Crime and the Community, 60 Crime, measuring 2009–2018 arrest rates from the UCR, 80–83 criminal legal system (CLS) response, 80 documenting and assessing gender patterns in offending over time, 83–88 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 80 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), 80

self-reported offending, 80 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 80 Crime processing, 120 The Criminality of Women, 27 Criminal justice system, 3 Criminal legal system (CLS), 3, 6, 95, 392–393 adult, presence of gender bias police decisions, 134–136 pretrial court decisions, 136–138 sentencing guideline research, 141–142 trial and posttrial decisions, 138–140 aggravating factors, 120–121 changes for women working, 416–417, 416f Civil Rights Act, 1964, 311 Community College of Indiana, 312 cultural variables, 120 gender bias in crime processing, 121 hypotheses of gender discrimination, 121–122 intimate partner abuse and stalking

courts, 294–296 “learned helplessness,” 286 nonprofit agencies and laws, 296–297 police, 287–292 protection/restraining orders (POs), 292–293 same-sex and different-sex partners, 287 victim advocates, 287 jobs through sexist stereotypical positions, women’s breaking into, 305 Latinas experiences, 4 legislative and court rulings, 310–313 mitigating factors, 121 nonbinary gender identities, 313 officials’ decision-making, 120, 121 paid labor force, 300 primary or sole “breadwinner,” women as, 311 response, 80 Schroer v. Billington, 312 sex discrimination, 313 sexual abuse, focusing on court process, 252–255

in-prison sexual abuse, 246–247 legitimate victims, 243–244 myths surrounding false rape charges, 247–248 nonprofit agencies, 255 police, 248–252 real or genuine victims, 243 real rapes with credible victims, 243 “the second rape,” 243 sexual assault kits (SAKs), 245 survivors’ characteristics and behaviors, 243–244 survivors’ participation, 244–245 survivors’ wishes and rights, 246 Title VII’s positive influence, criticisms/limitations, 312 worker research, 301 Criminals, 62 Criminology, 7 Critical criminology theory (CCT), 56–57 conflict/Marxist/radical perspective, 56 real criminals (the capitalists), 57

Critical legal studies (CritLS), 57, 76 Critical race feminist theory (CRFT) critical race feminism (CRF), emergence of, 58–59, 59t Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 59 impact of Bill Clinton’s 1996 PRWORA, 60 monolithic experience of womanhood, 58 Critical race theory (CRT) civil rights movement, 57–58 critical legal studies (CritLS), 57, 76 definition, 57 violence in urban schools, 58 Culture and gender inequality, 199–204 “Custodial institutions,” 307 Cycle of violence theory (CVT), 63, 63t, 397 abused/neglected youths, 64 “any sexual abuse,” 65 childhood abuse and neglect, 65–66 childhood sexual abuse victimization, 65 “sexual abuse plus” victims, 65

Walker’s acute abuse incident, 275 honeymoon phase, 275–276 tension-building phase, 275 Data collection, 18 Date rape drugs, 194–195, 223 Daughter neglect, 197 “Deathworthiness,” 127 Decision-making stages, stages of, 131 Decriminalizing Domestic Violence: A Balanced Policy Approach to Intimate Partner Violence, 8, 292 Delinquency and Opportunity, 35 Delinquent Boys, 34 The Delinquent Girl, 27–28 “Deviant sexuality,” 308 Diane Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 369 Differential association theory (DAT), 40–42 criminal behavior from poverty to association, 40 delinquent behavior, 41–42 feminist criticisms of, 41

non-sex-specific theory, 41 In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, 361 Disabilities, incarcerated women and girls with, 182–184 Diversity among women and girls feminist scholarship, 3–4 gender essentialism, 4 Global South/North, 5 Hispanics, 5 intersectional feminism, 4 Latinx individuals, 4 people with disabilities, 4 queer criminology, 4–5 research on LGBTQI+, 4 “Doing masculinity,” 98 Domestic sex trafficking, 211 Domestic violence, 10, 87, 258 Dowry death, 197 Driving under the influence (DUI) rates, 87, 97 Drug and alcohol facilitated sexual abuse (DAFSA), 222–223

Drug-facilitated sexual abuse (DFSA), 222 Drug treatment programs, 184 Dual arrests, 290 Eco-global criminology, 215 Ecological model, 393, 394f community and neighborhood, 394–395, 394f family, 393–394, 394f individual, 393, 394f institutional, 394f, 395 structural, 394f, 395 Economic marginalization hypothesis, 86 Education and training programs, 175 Egg donor GBA, 213–215 Egg sharing, 213, 215 Elder abuse, 198 Eldercide, 112 Emotional disorders, 184 Emotional labor, 372 Environmental criminology, 215 Environmental/green GBA, 215

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 369 Equal treatment (or null) hypothesis, 121 Equal: Women Reshape American Law, 385 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 59 “Evil woman” hypothesis, 121 Evolution, Gender, and Rape, 32 Familied status, 148–149 Fear of crime boys’, 206 gender differences gender socialization, 205, 206 patriarchy, 205 physical vulnerability, 205, 206 shadow of sexual assault, 205, 206 Female infanticide, 197 Feminism abolitionist feminism, 8 aim of, 5–6 anti-carceral feminism, 6

carceral feminism, 8 definition, 5 feminist theory, 6–7 field of deviance, 7 gender-based abuses (GBAs), 7 gender equality, 5 gender inequality and discrimination, 7, 8 intersectional, 4, 6–7 legitimate issue and approach, 6 myths, 6 sex-negativity, 7 sex-positivity, 7 variations of, 6 Feminist activism and scholarship, 217 Feminist consciousness, 361, 385 ‘Feminist criminology,’ 18 Feminist gang scholarship, brief history of, 115–116 Feminist method “the add-women-and-stir approach,” 14 categories for women of Color, 17

classist controlling images of Black women, 16–17 empirical criminology, 15 feminist standpoint theory, 16 gender and race patterns of school shootings, 17–18 maleness of crimes, 15 reflexivity, 15, 16 research methods, 15 study of males convicted of violent crimes (including rape), 15–16 Feminist movement, 23 Feminist reform, 216–217 Feminization of poverty, 84, 86 Filicides abuse-related, 114 assisted or coerced, 114 fatal child neglect, 114 gender-neutral offense, 112–113 infanticide, 112, 113 maternal or paternal, 113 neonaticide, 112, 113–114

Finding Feminism: Millennial Activists and the Unfinished Gender Revolution, 6 First women police, United States, 335f Alice Stebbins Wells, 335, 336 Gail Adrienne Cobb, 337 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), 335– 336 International Association of Policewomen (IAP), 335, 336 Metropolitan Police Women Patrols, 334 SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams, 336 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 211–212 Forced marriage, 198, 217 Forced prostitution/sex work, 197 Former partners, 258 Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus, 233–234 Freud, Sigmund, 24, 27 child sexual abuse (CSA), 231 founder of psychoanalysis, 27 racism, classism, and heterosexism, 27 Gamesmanship, 372

The Gang’s All Queer, 115 Gangs, girls and women in African American women’s, 114 bargaining with patriarchy, 119 boys in gangs, treating girls in gangs, 118 feminist gang scholarship, brief history of, 115–116 gangs and criminal behavior, 116–117 girls and women in, 114–119 LGBTQI+ gang members, 115 racism and sexism, 114 respite from the harsh environments, 117 safety and protection, 117 sense of belonging, 117 sense of family, 118 status, 117 Gender-based abuse (GBA), 3, 7, 10, 12, 32–34, 219, 297 breast implant, 211–213 changing responses to, 410–411, 412f contemporary rape culture, 33–34 corporate and environmental, 211–215

culture and gender inequality, 199–204 culture of victim-blaming and, 200–202 defining, 195–199 The Depressed Woman, 196 egg donor, 213–215 environmental/green, 215 feminist reform, 216–217 and gender inequality, relationship between, 202–204 intersectional, history and legacy, 207–209 MMIWG, 215–216 the-more-oppressed-the-more-GBA-victimization risk, 208 rates and fear of crime, 204–206 research findings from 1980s and 1990s, 208 sex differences and similarities in aggressive behavior, 32– 33 sexual frustration, role of, 33 significance of sexist culture, 199–200 social problem and depression, 196–197 trafficking, 209–211 victimizations, risk of, 207–208 wide range, 197–199 Gender-based violence (GBV), 196

Gender bias, stages of adult CLS police decisions Add Health data study, 135 drug treatment, 134–135 evil woman relationship, 134 “missing Black men” phenomenon, 134 “officer shuffle,” 135 police sexual violence (PSV), 135–136 pretrial court decisions case dismissal (declination), 137 defendant’s likelihood of “making bail,” 136–137 detention vs. pretrial release decision, 136 “evil woman” hypothesis, 137 gender equal treatment, 137 likelihood of pleading guilty or negotiating plea, 137– 138 sentencing guidelines, 136 sentencing guideline research

comparison of pre- and post-sentencing guidelines, 142 drug offenses, 141 factors courts, 141 gender equal treatment, 142 post-guideline implementation sentencing, 142 U.S. vs. Booker, 141 White women benefit, 150 trial and posttrial decisions, 138–140 death penalty sentencing, 140 gender equal treatment, 138 impact of “truth in sentencing” laws, 139 length of (incarceration) sentence, 138–139 parole violations, types of, 139–140 race-gender-age intersections, 138, 139 wrongful conviction research, 140 Gender convergence, 83, 83f, 84, 85, 86, 87 Gender-crime patterns, accounting for age and juvenile delinquency, 89–90 baby boomers, 85

blood alcohol content (BAC) level, 87 charging up or up-criming-policies, 86 consistent sex-stratification hypothesis, 85 co-offending, 88–89 driving under the influence (DUI) rates, 87 economic marginalization hypothesis, 86 extent of offending, 78–79 feminization of poverty, 84, 86 gender convergence, 83, 83f, 84, 85, 86, 87 gender divergence, 83, 83f, 85 gender gap in offending rates, 79f gender-neutral crimes, 79 gender stability, 83, 83f, 85 intersections with race/ethnicity and class, 90–93 measuring crime, 80–88 nature of offending, 79 net widening, 84, 86 no trend, 83, 83f offender-generated, 84 police data to assess, 84 prostitution/sex work laws, 79 serious mental illness (SMI), 94

sexuality and gender identity, 93–94 WLEH, 84–85 Gender differences, 12 Gender discrimination benevolent sexism, 123 chivalry (or paternalism) hypothesis, 121 in criminal legal system, 121–122 equal treatment (or null) hypothesis, 121 “evil woman” hypothesis, 121 gender-neutral laws, 125, 126 gender-specific laws, 125 hostile sexism, 123 immigration law, 127 infanticide law, 125 means of criminal laws, 125–127 Muncy Act, 127–128 statutory rape laws, 126 victim’s gender, 126–127 Gender divergence, 83, 83f, 85 Gender essentialism, 4

Gender inequality, 203, 204f Gender in Practice: A Study of Lawyers’ Lives, 371 Gender model, 321 Gender-neutral approach, 41 Gender-neutral crimes, 79 Gender-responsive programming, 407, 410 Gender role attitudes, 201 Gender socialization, 203 Gender stability, 83, 83f, 85 Gender stereotypes, 177 Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms, 371 Gender Trials or Gender in Practice, 373 General strain theory (GST), 54, 397 abuse or maltreatment, 38, 40 characteristics of the strain, 36 depression, 38 drug offending, 37–38 family strain, 37 gender differences in offending, 37 gender similarities, 37 male samples, 37

psychosocial strain sources, 36 sexual minority status (SMS) girls, 40 sexual or physical abuse, 38 strains, 40 test of, 38, 39t General theory of crime (GTC), 66 dating aggression, 46 ineffective child-rearing, 45–46 self-control, 45–46 Girls and women’s offending family impact statement, 409 gender-responsive programming, 407, 410 health care, 409 importance of programming, 410 incarcerated parents, 409 intersection of gender, 406 research-based recommendations, 407 risks and responses, 406–410 safety from staff and prisoners, 407, 408t, 409

sexual coercion, 407, 409 structural factors, 406–407 Glass-ceiling effect, 306–307 Glass escalator, 307 Global South, 5 Green crimes, 215 Green victims, 215 Guglielmo Ferrero, 23 Health needs and access to services, 177–185 abortions, 181 breast, gynecological, prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum health care, 179–182 childbirth process, 180 gynecological care, 179 Hidalgo v. New Mexico Department of Corrections, 180 HIV/AIDS, 178–179 incarcerated women and girls with disabilities, 182–184 mental health problems, 184–185 pregnant inmates, 179–180 pregnant prisoners, 181–182

prenatal and postnatal conditions, 180–181 “window on the body” and dental health, 182 Hegemonic masculinity, 269 Heidensohn’s (1992) phases, UK and US, 330–333, 331f expansion, 333 innate mothering talent, 333 latency and depression, 333 moral reform, rescue, and matrons, 330–331 specialists and pioneers, 331–332 Hishon v. King & Spalding, 374 Homicides filicides, 112–114 intimate partner homicides (IPHs), 112 Homophobia, 7, 309 Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, 197 Homosexuality, 93, 308 Honor murders, 197 Hookers, 102 Hostile environment sexual harassment, 238

Hostile sexism, 123, 201 Hoyt v. Florida, 361 Human sacrifice, 197 Human smuggling, definition, 210, 210f Human trafficking, 197, 210f, 217 Hustlers, 102 Hyperincarceration, 161 Immigrants, 267 law, 127 status, 280 Importation-differential experiences model, 325 In an Abusive State, 8 Incarceration disabilities, women and girls with, 182–184 prison-sanctioned rape, 154–155 rates of gender comparisons in offenses, 164–166, 164t–165t over time, gender comparisons in, 161–163

U.S., intersections of gender, race/ethnicity, and class, 166–167, 167f U.S. rates over time, 162–163, 162f, 163f sexual disturbances, 154 structural sexism, 152 women and girls, history of punishment, 153–155 racist segregation and treatment in institutions, 159– 160 sex-segregated custodial prisons, 159 women’s prison reform, 155–159 women’s prisons since 1960s, 160–161 women’s rights and prisoners’ rights movements, 152 “Incarceration boom,” 161 Inclusive Policing From the Inside Out, 338 “Indian Country jails” (ICJs), 165–166 Infanticide, 112 Infibulation, 197 Influences on female criminality, 27 In-house counsel, 373

In-prison sexual abuse, 246–247 In-school “zero tolerance” policies, 87 Institutionalized sexism, 173, 307 International sex trafficking, 211 Intersectional approach feminism, 4, 6–7 GBA U.S. racism and rape, legacies of, 207 gendering criminology diversity among women and girls, 3–5 effect of societal images on women regarding crime, 16–18 feminism, 5–8 feminist method, 14–16 sex vs. gender, 12–14 women and girls’ invisibility, 8–12 harassment, 208–209 Intimate partner abuse (IPA), 31–32, 195, 217, 276–278, 393

characteristics, 277 childhood victimization, 279 CLS. See Criminal Legal System (CLS) competitively disadvantaged females (CDFs), 32 competitively disadvantaged males (CDMs), 32 control/restraint, 268 cultural factors, 280 dating, 237 defining, 257–259 domestic violence, 31 economic marginalization, 279 emotionally abusive tactics, 268 entrapment, 284 excuses, 277 fear of crime levels, 32 financial/economic, 265–266 genderist attacks, 268 historical identification, 269–271 homophobic/heterosexist environment, 268 immigrants, 267, 280 intergenerational transmission of violence, 278 IP abusers, 283t–284t

IPA tactics, 260–268, 261t–262t justifications, 277 LGBTQI+, 267–268 married, 237 mental disability, 280 mental planning, 281 myth of IPA gender symmetry, 272–275 neglect tactics, 268 parenting status, 279–280 people with (dis)abilities, 268 pet/animal abuse, 264–265 physical, 263, 280 pregnancy, 263–264 psychological/emotional abuse, 264–267 race/ethnicity, 279 rates, frequency of, 271–274 resistance and fighting back, 414–415 responding to, 413–414 risk factors for staying with and leaving IP abusers, 281– 282 sexual, 263 significance of coercion/coercive control, 259–260

social isolation, 265, 267 spiritual, 266 survivors, 202, 258–259, 280 batterer-generated risks, 402 circumstances, 281 life-generated risks, 402 one-size-fits-all responses, 402–403 staying/leaving decisions, 285–286 unacknowledged victims, 259 systems abuse, 266 threaten or attempt suicide, 278 trans or intersexed, 280 victimhood, 272 victims’ bodies, 276–277 victims/survivors, 279–280 Walker’s cycle theory of violence, 275–276 Intimate partner homicides (IPHs), 112, 144 Intimate partner violence (IPV), 258 Job model, 321

Johnson, Lyndon, 152 Judges decision-making, gender differences in, 385–388 women, 381–384 Juries, women, 361–362 Just Mercy, 56 Juvenile delinquency, 308 Labeling theory (LT), 60–62 advancing, 61–62 #BlackLivesMatter movement, 60 gender applications, 62 juvenile delinquents or offenders, 60 Latinas, 4 criminal legal system (CLS), 4 as ethnicity, 124 as hot-blooded, 17 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) data, 350, 351t

Law professors, women, 388–390 Law schools since 1950s, women in, 368–370 Legal education and training women of color’s entry into, 366–368 women’s access to, 362–368 (mostly white) women’s entry, 363–366 LGB police officers, 356–357 LGBTQI+ criminal and deviant, 24 individuals, 19 Life course theory (LCT) research, 63, 63t, 66–67, 397 advancing, 69 age and developmental theory, 68 childhood antisocial behaviors, 66 de-escalators, persistent de-escalators, persisters, and chronic fluctuators, 69, 70t dependent variables, 66 expanding LCT to girls and women, 68–69 family and nonfamily (nonsexual) violent victimizations, 68

focus on boys and young men, 67–68 formal and informal social controls, 66 marriage effect, 68–69 prospective, 64 social bonds, 66–67 Lombroso, Cesare, 23, 24–26 Criminal Man, 25 Criminal Woman, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman, 25 exaggerated eroticism, 25 father of criminology, 24, 26 gender-nonconforming and queer people, 26 identification of atavism, 25 Male-female binary phenomenon, 19 Male-gender-related offenses embezzlement, 82, 85, 94 larceny-theft, 82, 85, 94 liquor law violations, 83, 85, 94 prostitution/sex work and commercialized vice, 82–83, 85, 94

Male law-breakers, 23 Marijuana/Cannabis, 100 Marital rape, 236 causes of, 236–237 Marital status, 148 Marx, Karl, 56 Masculinity theory (MT) in boys’ delinquency, 34 “code of the street” approach, 75–76, 77 criminal behavior, 77 critical race masculinism, 75 doing masculinity, 75 girl fighters or ghetto, 76 labor, power, and sexuality, 75 offending, 6 racial and socialist feminism, 75 role of, 6 Mass incarceration, 23, 161 Matron, 305

Men and boys’ experiences, 22 Mental health problems, 184–185 Mentally disabled rape survivors, 217 Mentoring, 380 Methamphetamine, 100–101 #MeToo movement, 242, 243, 320 Military sexual assault, 242 Missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (#MMIWG), 8 in Canada and United States, 216 colonial terror, 216 in North America, 215–216 “Missing Black men” phenomenon, 124, 134, 141 “Missing White Woman Syndrome,” 126 Multimethods, 399–400 Multiple consciousness, 4 “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness,” 4 Muncy Act and legacy in indeterminate sentencing, 127–128 State v. Chambers, 127–128

women’s sentencing, 127, 128 National Crime Survey (NCS), 228, 230 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 80, 205, 219, 228, 230 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), 80, 107 National Violence Against Women (NVAW) survey, 229, 275 Native American/Indigenous children and adults, 124 A Natural History of Rape, 30, 32 Neonaticide, 112 Net widening, 84, 86 Nixon, war on drugs, 128, 141 Nonmedical prescription drug (NMPD), 101 Non-sex-specific theory, 41 Non-status offense delinquency, 130–131 Normativity, 392 Nothing-or-incarceration approach, 246 Obstetric fistula, 198, 217 “Offenders,” 61 Offending patterns for combined violent and property offenses

drug offending, 143–144 homicide, 144 prostitution/sex work, 144–145 women and girls educational, vocational, and recreational programs, 175–177 health needs and access to services, 177–185 history of incarcerating women and girls, 153–161 Jordan v. Gardner, 192 Nowhere to Hide, 191–192 prison subculture, 185–190 rates of incarceration, 161–167 sexual abuse of women and girls while incarcerated, 190–192 sexual victimization, 191 Tracy Neal v. The Michigan State Department of Corrections, 192 women’s prison regime, 167–174 Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression, 32 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC), 309 Older struggling rookies, 102

One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Gender, 55 Operant conditioning, 42 Opportunity theory (OT), 35–36 Organizational sexism, 325 Original and positivist studies, 23–28 Cesare Lombroso, 23, 24–26 female criminality, 23–24 Guglielmo Ferrero, 23 legacies from 1960s and 1970s, 27–28 Otto Pollak, 24, 27 Sigmund Freud, 24, 27 W. I. Thomas, 24, 26–27 Outsiders, 60–61 Paid labor force gender-based occupational segregation, 303 gender discrimination, 303 history of sex/gender discrimination in, 302–304 marriage, 302 maternity, 302

paid and unpaid work, 303 women’s “natural” inferiority, 302 Paradigmatic victim, 270 “The paradox of fear,” 205 Parenthood, gender difference among prisoners, 170–171 Parole violations absconding, 139 criminal, 139 technical, 139 Partner rape, 236 Partners, 373 (ex)partners, 258, 292 domestic violence, 258 spouse abuse, 258 Pathways theory (PT), 63, 63t, 69–70, 396 adverse life events, 70 “bad homes” and “poor parenting,” 74 Battered women, 72

childhood sexual victimizations, 71, 74 drug-connected-women, 72 feminist scholarship, 69–70 gang membership, 73 Harmed and harming women, 72 “heightened status,” 73 incarcerated women, 72–73 mental illness, 74 other women, 72 patterns and advancement, 73–74 physical and sexual abuse, 74 presentence investigation reports (PSIs), 72 retrospective, 64 street crime, 72 street women, 72 studies consistent with PT that preceded naming of PT, 71– 73 victimization of major trauma, 71 Patriarchy, 18 Peer sexual harassment, 239 Penal coloniality, 123

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), 60 Plastic surgery in United States in 2018, 213, 214f Plexiglass ceiling, 374 Police case founding, 250 “false charge,” 250 intimate partner abuse arresting victims and offenders, 290 barriers, 289–290 domestic violence arrest policies, 291 IPA victimizations, 288–289 mediation training and policies, 287 positive findings, 291–292 pro-arrest domestic violence policies, 287–289 1984 Thurman v. City of Torrington case, 288 “unwanted arrests,” 291 women IPA survivors, 291 women’s “failed identity” frustration, 289 #MeToo movement, 248–249

racism, 249–250 responses to sexual abuse clearance of sexual abuse victimization reports, 251– 252 unfounding and highly exaggerated false rape reports, 250–251 sexual abuse/rape, 248 sexual assault victims, 249 stalking, 292 survivors’ age, 249 survivors’ characteristics and behaviors, 243–244 unfounding, 250 victim-offender relationship (VOR) reports, 248 Police identity formation continued checks and salience, 338 discovery, 338 identity acceptance, 338 try-outs, 338 validation and negotiation, 338 Police sexual violence (PSV), 135–136

Policewomen, 327 PoliceWOMEN category, 319 Policing and law enforcement, women working in Brown’s (1997) phases, Europe, 331f, 333–334 civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements’, 328 community policing, 328 crime-fighting policing, 328 first women police, United States, 334–337 gender and stress, 342–343 gender differences in job performance, 343–347 “caretakers and nurturers,” 343 GBA victims, 344 IPA programs, 345 officer gender, 345 on police patrol, 344 quarter-century post-Title VII, 344 representative bureaucracy theory, 347 sexual assault complaints, 345–346 women change policing, 346–347 Heidensohn’s (1992) phases, UK and US, 330–333, 331f

heterosexism/homophobia/transphobia, 356–358 inclusive organizational culture, 353 organizational benevolence, 352 patrol duty-“the backbone of policing,” 349 phases and stages, 330 police officer identities, 337–338 and prison/jail work, 329–330 racism, intersection of, 354–356 resistance to women in policing, 339–341 field training officers (FTOs), 340–341 identity acceptance, 340 legislation, 340 police training academy, 340 slow integration of women, 339–340 sexual harassment, 341–342 sexual identity with gender and sexism, 354–358 Title VII and other legislation and policies, 338–339 vertical differentiation, 352 women breaking into police work, 329–337 women police officers, classifications of, 347–349

women’s representation in policing, 349–354 promotion, 353–354 recruitment and retention, 349–353 Postsecondary correctional education (PSCE), 176 Power-control theory (PCT), 399 boy-only multivariate models, 49 gendered practices of parents and parenting, 46–51 Hagan’s theory, 49 home and workplace, 46–47 Indigenous youths, 49–50 “ineffective child-rearing,” 50 limitation of, 47 maternal and paternal support, 48 parental controls, 48 race and class, 47 scholars’ assessments, 47 single-parent-mother, 50–51 youths’ self-reported delinquency, 48 Pretty Woman (movie), 17

“Prison epidemic,” 161–162 (men) prisoners’ rights to privacy, 315–317 Ambat v. City and County of San Francisco 2010, 316 cross-gender prisoner supervision, 315–316 cross-sex supervision in jails and prisons, 316–317 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 315 female guarding male (F/M) situation, 316 Jordan v. Gardner, 316 male guarding female (M/F) situation, 316 “no cross-sex” approach, 317 U.S. v. Gregory, 317 Prison nurseries, 173–174 Prisons and jails, women working in Brown v. Board of Education, 301 CLS jobs through sexist stereotypical positions, 305 comparing racial and gender workplace discrimination, 304–305 correctional officer, 301 Frontiero v. Richardson, 305 gender similarities and differences, 317–325

guards, women. See Women guards history of sex/gender discrimination in paid labor force, 302–304 job performance and attitudes, 320–323 job satisfaction and stress, 323–325 legislative and court rulings, in CLS, 310–313 matron role, 305 prison and jail workers, 301 (men) prisoners’ rights to privacy, 315–317 prison officers, 301 security/safety, women guards’ assumed threat to, 313–315 U.S. prison and jail workers, 302t women as token workers, 306–307 women trailblazers, 307–310 Prison subculture, 185–190 deprivation model, 189 “evil woman” self-images, 189 family/kinship networks, 188 friendships and networks women prisoners, 186 homosexuality, 189–190 importation model, 189

juvenile institutions, 188 prison experiences, 185 prison safeness, 187 pseudofamilies, 188 racial tension/racism and segregation, 186 same-sex relationships, 189 same-sex sex and same-sex rape, 190 woman-loving-woman relationships, 189 women prisoners’ tighter relationships, 187–188 women’s romantic or sexual interest, 188 women’s social economic class, 186 Processing women and girls, CLS chivalry hypothesis, 122–123 chivalry remains complicated, 145–149 criminal laws and gender discrimination, 125–128 empirical findings, 134–145 hypotheses of gender discrimination, 121–122 legacy of racism and confounding measures of race/ethnicity, 123–125 processing youthful defendants/offenders, 128–134

Promiscuity, 34 Prosecutor, 243–244 Prostitution/sex work buyers, 108 facilitators, 108 sellers, 108 sugar babies, 108 survival prostitution/sex work, 108–109 vice or victimless offense, 108 Protection orders (POs), intimate partner abuse and stalking, 292–293 Psychological entrapment, 285 Punishing females, 61 Pure victim, 270 Queens of the scene, 102 Queer criminology, 4–5 Race/ethnicity African American men and boys, 125 Asian Americans, 124

CLS data, 92, 124 confounding measures of, 123–125 correctional statistics, 91 criminalization of victimized Black women and girls, 91 evaluation of youth self-reported violence, 92–93 gender comparisons, 90 inner-city and suburban youths, 92 Latinx as ethnicity, 124 likelihood of Black and Brown people, 123–124 “missing Black men” phenomenon, 124 Native American/Indigenous children and adults, 124 official statistics of crime rates, 91 penal coloniality, 123 people of Color, 124 social class, 92 women of Color, 91–92 Race, Racism, and American Law, 57 Racialized sexual harassment, 208 Racism, 7, 123–125 Rape, 195

acknowledged rape victims, 228 African American-on-White rapes, 228–229 attempted rape, 224, 229 campus rape, 234 completed, 229 contemporary rape culture, 33–34 culture, 225–227 culture, definition, 199 date, 33, 220, 263 definition of, 15 forcible, 230 gag effect, 228 gang rapes, 234 historical developments, 224 hook-up or friends with benefits, 233 incapacitated, 230 incidence rates, 229–230 intraracial, 228 marital, 227, 263 myths, 225–227 oral, anal, or vaginal, 263 prevalence (lifetime) rates, 229, 230

real, 219 risks of, 219 “the second rape,” 243 survivors, 202 survivors’ wishes and rights, 246 typical, 233 unacknowledged rape victims, 227 verbally coercive rapes, 230 violent, 231 “voiced nonconsent,” 228 Rape crisis centers (RCCs), 255 Rape kits. See Sexual assault kits (SAKs) Rape myths, 199–200, 201 alcohol/drugs, 225 “getting herself raped,” 226 institutionalized, 226 rapists/sexual abusers, sick, 225–226 television music videos, 226–227 Recidivism, 131, 132, 146

Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation, 207 Research methods, 398–401 Restorative justice (RJ) model, 401, 404–405 Restraining orders. See Protection orders (POs) Retaliatory arrest, 290 Rethinking Rape, 32 Revenge porn, 198 “Reverse sexism,” 325 Revictimization, 228 Robbery, 104–106 Safety Planning With Battered Women, 402 Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear, 270 Selective chivalry, 122 Selective malnourishment, 197 Selectivity hypothesis, 122 Self-control theory, 66 Selling/dealing drugs, 102–103 “Serial sex offenders,” 237 Serious mental illness (SMI), 94 Sex differences, 12

Sexism, 2 benign and benevolent, 13 and homophobia, 309 structural, 13 Sexist culture, significance of, 199–200 rape culture, definition, 199 rape myths, 199–200 sexual violence, 200 toxic masculinity, definition, 199 Sexist “mothering” roles. See Matron Sex-negativity, 61 Sex trafficking, 217 definition, 210f international and domestic, 211 Sexual abuse, 29–31 Child. See Child sexual abuse (CSA) and CLS. See Criminal legal system (CLS) college, 233–236

consent, coercion, and force, 220–222, 221f defining, 219–223 drug and alcohol facilitated sexual abuse (DAFSA), 222– 223 historical developments, 224 marital/spousal/partner rape, 236–238 from Professor Anita Hill to Hollywood, 240 responding to, 411–413 sexual harassment, 238–239 statistics on sexual abuse, 227–231 street harassment, 239–240 victims’ impairment level, 222f of women and girls while incarcerated, 190–192 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 190 romantic and sexual relationships, 190 sexual victimization of women, 190 Sexual assault, 195, 220f risks of, 218–219 victimization, 205 Sexual assault kits (SAKs), 237

lab submission, 245 Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, 411 Sexual bribery, 239 Sexual coercion, 239 Sexual exploitation, 195 Sexual harassment, 94, 194 gender harassment, 239 hostile environment, 238 impacts of, 242 power, 239 contrapower sexual harassment, 239 peer sexual harassment, 239 traditional power sexual harassment, 239 from Professor Anita Hill to Hollywood, 240 quid pro quo harassment, 238 seductive behavior, 239 sexual assaults, gross sexual imposition, and indecent exposures, 239 sexual bribery, 239 sexual coercion, 239

victim-offender relationships, 241–242 Sexuality and gender identity, 93–94 Sexualization delinquency or perceptions of delinquency, 93 of girls’ lives, 93 Sexual maturity, 31 Sexual minority status (SMS), 40, 93, 96, 147 Sexual predators, 202 Sexual teasing, 342 Sexual violence, 220 Sex vs. gender, 12–14 feminist jurisprudence, 14 gender binary (male-female binary), 12–13 patriarchy, 13 sex and gender differences, 12 sexism, 13 social (not biological) construct, 14 transgender, 13 Sex work and prostitution, 108–109

Silicone gel implants, 212 Sisters in Crime, 51 Smart, 23 Social bond theory (SBT) attachment bonds, 44 attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief, 43 conventional ties, 43–45 crimes delinquency and drug use, 45 gender differences, 45, 53 girls’ and boys’ depression, 44 parental controls and supervision, 44 Social control theories (SCTs), 42–51, 54 general theory of crime (GTC), 45–46 power-control theory (PCT), 46–51 social bond theory (SBT), 43–45 Social Learning and Imitation, 42 Social learning theory (SLT), 42, 54 Societal images “Madonnas” or “whores,” 16

on women regarding crime, effect of, 16–18 Sperm Wars, 30 Sports/physical activity (SPA) programs, 176 Spousal rape, 236 Spousal violence, 258 Spouse abuse, 258 Stalking, 195, 217 characteristics, 279 CLS. See Criminal Legal System (CLS) coercion/coercive control, 259–260 defining, 257, 259 historical identification, 271 NVAW survey, 278–279 rates, 274–275 tactics, 268–269 cyberstalking, 269 traditional, 268–269 victims/survivors, 279–280 Walker’s cycle theory of violence, 275–276

“State-corporate” crimes, 215 Status offenders assault, 90 culmination of the child-savers, 128 girls’ portion, 130 gynecological exams, 129 immorality and waywardness, 128 juvenile court system, 129 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), 129 policing of girls’ sexuality, 128 statutory rape laws, 128–129 theft, 90 transinstitutionalizing of girls, 129–130 vandalism, 90 youthful defendants/offenders, processing, 128–130 Stay-away orders. See Protection orders (POs) Strain theories, 34–40 general strain theory (GST), 36–40 opportunity theory (OT), 35–36

traditional strain theory (TST), 34–35 Street harassment definition, 239–240 general violence, 240 spirit murder, 240 women of Color, 240 Street Women, 72 Structural sexism, 13, 282, 337 Substance use, abuse, and selling (SUAS) drugs to lose weight, 97 drugs to self-medicate, 97 exchange sex and companionship for drugs, 97 gender difference, 97 gendered distinction, 97 gender-specific law, 97 larger variety of drugs, men and boys, 97–98 male-gender-related, 97 and other crimes, links between, 103 reasons for trying and using, 98–100

adultification, 98–99 doing masculinity, 99–100 gender differences, 98 meth procurement strategies, 99, 99t for pleasure and thrill-seeking, 98 selling/dealing drugs, 102–103 type of substance abused, 100–102 alcohol, 100 crack, 101–102 Marijuana/Cannabis, 100 methamphetamine, 100–101 nonmedical prescription drug (NMPD), 101 Substance use disorder (SUD), 182 Survivor-defined advocacy, 402 Survivors of GBA, 204–205 SWAT, 360 Taking the Stand, 252 Taylor v. Louisiana, 361–362 Theft, 103–104

Thelma and Louise (movie), 17 Theoretical approaches combining feminist-friendly theories, 396–398 transformative critical feminist criminology, 396 Thomas, W. I., 24, 26–27 criminality, definition, 26 era of mass illness and starvation, 26 impact of promiscuity, 27 Sex and Society, 26 sex-outside-of-marriage, 26 The Unadjusted Girl, 26 “Throwaway moms,” 170 Title VII and other legislation and policies, 338–339 Tokenism, 306 Token workers, women as, 306–307 Toxic masculinity, 18, 199 Tracking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 211 Traditional power sexual harassment, 239 Traditional strain theory (TST)

criticisms of, 34 delinquency rates, 35 promiscuity, 34 role of masculinity, 34 Trafficking, 209–211 coercion, 210f definition, 209–210, 210f Trailblazers, women, 307–310 Trans, definition of, 13 Transformative critical feminist criminology (TCFC), 396 Transgender, definition of, 13 Trauma-informed care (TIC), 405–406 Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), 183 Trump, Donald, 11, 24 Typicality hypothesis, 122 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 80, 228 2009-2018 arrest rates, 80–83, 81t–82t individual offenses, 82–83 nature and extent of offending, 81–82

non-index offense arrest rates, 82–83 recent data and gender-crime gap 2009-2018, 87–88 Victim-blaming culture of, 200–202 and GBA, 200–202 Victim-offender relationship (VOR), 219, 230 in Grades K-12, 241 #MeToo era, 242 military sexual assault, 242 religious settings, 241–242 in stalking, 257 workplace sexual harassment (WSH) syndrome, 241 Victims accountability, 244, 249 credibility, 243, 249 demographic characteristics, 243 GBA, 195 moral character, 243, 244, 249

resistance, 243, 244, 249 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA), 11, 296 Violence, 195, 196f Violence Against Latina Immigrants, 296 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 10, 11, 211, 217, 296 Vocational training, 175–176 ‘Vulnerable’ woman, 11 Wartime rape, 217 White-Collar Crimes (WCCs) corporate crime study, 107 gender-neutral offense, 106–107 and occupational crime, 107 occupational fraud offenses, 107 asset misappropriation, 107 corruption, 107 fraudulent statements, 107 White-male-related crime, 107 “White female effect,” 126

White slavery, 211 “Window on the body” and dental health, 182 Womanhood, 207 Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), 330 Women and Crime, 51 Women and feminist scholars studying crime, 23 Women and girls’ invisibility blurring of boundaries of women’s experiences in crime, 12 in CLS, 8, 11 correctional institutions, 10 explorers, 9 feminist criminology, 8 gender-based abuse, 10 growth of feminist and intersectional scholarship, 9 historical developments, 2 #MMIWG, 8 as offenders, 8, 9–10 offending for specific crimes, context of Add Health data, analysis of, 96 aggression and assault, 109–110

burglary, 104, 105f child abductions/kidnappings, 110–111 drugs and alcohol, SUAS. See Substance use, abuse, and selling (SUAS) girls and women in gangs, 114–119 homicides, 111–114 robbery, 104–106, 105f sexual minority status (SMS) youths, 96 sex work and prostitution, 108–109 theft, 103–104, 105f White-Collar Crimes (WCCs), 106–107 as victims, 8, 10–11 Women Guarding Men, 301 Women guards assumed threat to prison security/safety, 313–315 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 314, 315 Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2002, 314– 315 gendered organizational logic, 321 gender model, 321 gender role orientation, 324

gender similarities and differences, 317–325 Gunther v. Iowa State Men’s Reformatory, 315 importation-differential experiences model, 325 job model, 321 job performance and attitudes, 320–323 job satisfaction and stress, 323–325 legal resistance to, 313–317 male-dominated culture in prison/jail, 318 #MeToo movement, 320 military experience, 317–318 on-the-job safety/dangerousness, 324 organizational sexism, 325 policeWOMEN category, 319 rehabilitation/custodial views, 322 resistance to, 318–320 reverse sexism, 325 role problems, 325 roles or adjustment strategies regarding, 319 views of gender and job, 318–320 Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice, 320 work-role prisonization model, 325

Women in Control? The Role of Women in Law Enforcement, 328 Women law-breakers, 23 Women police officers, 327 classifications of, 347–349 male police officers, 347–348 POLICEwomen or policeWOMEN, 347 queen bees, 348–349 traditionals, moderns, and moderates, 347 integrated, 349 modified, 349 traditional, 349 Women’s jobs, 306 Women’s liberation emancipation hypothesis (WLEH), 51–52, 83, 84–85, 95 assumptions of, 51–52 feminization of poverty, 52 property crimes, 52 Women’s prison reform

first wave of reform, 155–157 custodial institutions, 156–157 fallen women, 155 female role of domesticity, 157 harsher punishment, 156 reformatories, 157 second wave of reform, 158–159 increased professionalism, 158 sex offenses, 158–159 sex-segregated facilities, 158 Women’s prison regime benevolent sexism, 168 children of incarcerated mothers, impacts on, 171–172 degradation ceremonies, 169 gender disparities, 169 habilitation, 169 hostile sexism, 168 losing custody/children, 172–173 Outlaw Women, 169–170

parenthood, gender difference among prisoners, 170–171 prison nurseries, 173–174 Semelbauer v. Muskegon County, 169 societal and structural sexism, 170–171 structural sexism, 168 unprecedented rates, 167–168 Women’s prison subcultures, 171 Women trailblazers, 307–310 Women working in the courts access to legal education and training, 362–368 attorneys, 370–381 gender differences in judges’ decision-making, 385–388 judges, 381–384 on juries, 361–362 law professors, 388–390 in law schools since 1950s, 368–370 Workplace sexual harassment (WSH) syndrome, 241 Work-role prisonization model, 325 You Don’t Look Like a Lawyer: Black Women and Systemic Gendered Racism, 377

Youthful defendants/offenders, 398 developmental and mental health, 132–133 gender-race intersections, 131–132 girl-only samples, 132 non-status offense delinquency, 130–131 as status offenders, 128–130 transferring youths to adult court, 133–134