On the surface, feminism may seem like a simple concept. It is focused on a movement that works to bring an end to gender discrimination and open spaces of gender equality for women in political, economic, and social spaces.
Feminism in the United States is typically described in terms of “waves” through time. According to the common “wave” model, the first wave of feminism took place during the late 19th and early 20th centuries fighting to alter social views of women as more than the property of their fathers and husbands. An essential component of this first wave was the demand for with white women’s right to vote, even though this movement was related to abolitionist efforts in slave contexts. The second wave built on the challenge of what women’s roles in society should be by looking at why women were oppressed and questioned traditional gender and family expectations during the 1960s and 70s. The third wave of the 1990s revolved around understanding and accepting identity by welcoming individuality and rebellion through the free expression of sexuality.
Today, we are positioned in what is considered the fourth wave of modern feminism in America. It is an era of emphasis on the inclusivity and intersectionality of identity that asks what empowerment, equity, and freedom really mean for all women in relation to institutionalization. Feminist movements all aim to fight and solve the problem of power imbalance.
Even as intersectionality has become a popularly invoked term in what can be called a fourth wave of feminism, it is still true that one dominant mode of feminism in out contemporary context is “liberal feminism, which asks, how can women fit into existing institutional structures designed for men? With this focus, men are the standard and the category “women” remains universalized. Women are essentially meant to be meeting the same ground as them. This dominant mode is alternatively celebrated or critiqued by differing feminist theorists and activists. For example, in Are Prisons Obsolete?, Angela Davis argues against the notion that the goal of feminism should be to seek “formal equality” for women with men.
One ongoing fundamental goal of feminst activism is considering how to end instutitional violence against women. Currently, feminism finds itself at the crossroads of two different movements when approaching this question as it relates to prisons and policing: carceral feminism and abolition feminism.
Carceral Feminism v. Abolition Feminism
Both carceral and abolition feminism look to how the state and government break down the imbalances of gendered power that may or may not perpetuate harm and violence against women, but they differ in their analytical conclusions about the role of the prison-industrial complex (PIC) in mitigating or augmenting power imbalances and gendered violence.
Carceral feminism describes an approach that wishes to increase policing, prosecution, and imprisonment as the primary solution to gendered or sexual violence. Using the means of organized state violence to end interpersonal violence is acceptable for carceral feminists. There is ignorance in the ways in which identifying factors, such as race, class, gender, sexuality, or immigration status, are criminalized by institutionalization that places some people at risk of state violence for falling into individual or intersected categories. On the other end, those who may fall into normative bounds of identification are not held responsible for actions of violence against women. It also could unfortunately result in victims falling into the hands of law enforcement and/or facilities.
This movement in practice strengthens the prison industrial complex by asking for state involvement. The 1994 Violence Against Women Act, part of the largest crime bill in American history, funded prison expansion and the hiring of hundreds of thousands new police officers across the country in the name of protecting women.
But increasing security does not create safety. Money keeps being poured into the PIC by various means and avenues, yet as a society, we continue to see gendered and sexual violence (or feminist movements would not exist). Safety is a product of building connections or practicing transformation justice in the face of violence. As incarcerated activist Stevie Wilson writes, right relations lead to safe communities.
In contrast to carceral feminism and in line with the abolitionist distinction between safety and security, abolition feminism works to do just that. Its focus is on breaking down the institution that oppresses all women by putting females, gender-nonconforming and trans people of color at the center of analysis (as exemplified by the organization INCITE!). Relationship building between people and within communities is key to ending harm and violence against women and gender non-conforming people. As a result, abolition feminism does not seek equality with men or white women, but for full liberation from criminalization, institutionalization, and the PIC that continues to oppress marginalized people. For abolition feminists, the state is the central organizer of violence. With its continued existence, communities are discouraged from organizing, action, leadership, and decision-making to foster strong relationships for the end of oppression and violence women face.