What do you think?
Rate this book
In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement against Sexual Violence
In an Abusive State puts forth a powerful argument: that the feminist campaign to stop sexual violence has entered into a problematic alliance with the neoliberal state. Kristin Bumiller chronicles the evolution of this alliance by examining the history of the anti-violence campaign, the production of cultural images about sexual violence, professional discourses on intimate violence, and the everyday lives of battered women. She also scrutinizes the rhetoric of high-profile rape trials and the expansion of feminist concerns about sexual violence into the international human-rights arena. In the process, Bumiller reveals how the feminist fight against sexual violence has been shaped over recent decades by dramatic shifts in welfare policies, incarceration rates, and the surveillance role of social-service bureaucracies.Drawing on archival research, individual case studies, testimonies of rape victims, and interviews with battered women, Bumiller raises fundamental concerns about the construction of sexual violence as a social problem. She describes how placing the issue of sexual violence on the public agenda has polarized gender- and race-based interests. She contends that as the social welfare state has intensified regulation and control, the availability of services for battered women and rape victims has become increasingly linked to their status as victims and their ability to recognize their problems in medical and psychological terms. Bumiller suggests that to counteract these tendencies, sexual violence should primarily be addressed in the context of communities and in terms of its links to social disadvantage. In an Abusive State is an impassioned call for feminists to reflect on how the co-optation of their movement by the neoliberal state creates the potential to inadvertently harm impoverished women and support punitive and racially based crime control efforts.
232 pages, Paperback
First published April 4, 2008
17 people are currently reading
611 people want to read
About the author
Kristin Bumiller
2 books8 followersKristin Bumiller is Professor of Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies at Amherst College. She is the author of In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement against Sexual Violence and Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 27, 2017
So despite my sometimes lukewarm response while reading, I have been referencing this book when talking about sexual violence. It's a good time to read the book if you've been following the events post-Jimmy Savile and what's happening in Steubenville. Actually let's be real, it's always a good time to read a book like this!
Bumiller argues that the increased criminalisation in relation to sexual violence and domestic violence i.e. the sometimes feminist faith in legal reform, the reliance on the state to provide services and on funding of feminist services, the medical model approach to treating and supporting victims and survivors, and the exporting of feminist human rights principles, of practice and through the military to Global South countries (my pet feminist peeve) overall does not support victims and survivors of both forms of violence. Instead:
*the victims or survivors are often criminalised -- especially if they are women of colour,
*therapeutic interventions are often useless, instead of flexible and holistic responses -- the victim or survivor has to fit into a box regarding every aspect of the body,
*the body becomes of a site of increased scrutiny and invasiveness,
*men of colour are across the board criminalised etc.
If you've read a bit about sexual violence and responses from different institutions then not much will be new...but Bumiller tries to create some sort of paradigm shift through arguing that we must resist increased criminalisation while not relying on community responses to sexual assault as the only or best solution. She does this through breaking down every aspect of state responses.
The strongest chapters -- outstanding really, are chapters 4 and 5. 6 is great too.
I loved reading about Donna, a Black woman and how she handled the state from her interviews. It was also amazing to read about how refuges started off with the ethos that being a mother was a (powerful) identity to create a new life rather than what neoliberalism and state surveillance have promoted -- which is to YOU MUST ESCAPE HIM TO BE A GOOD MOTHER, if you DON'T GO, the state will take your kids off you, parenting classes!, fulfil these criteria to be a good mother...etc.
My biggest criticisms are that in the first third of the book, while it does give feminism the big kick in the arse that it needs -- is it over attributes causation and amount of influence that feminism had re: sexual violence and domestic violence that it could create the cultural conditions which have led to increased criminalisation. I think some feminist responses have gone along with this and not incorporated or not given a shit about racially marginalised groups of women and I think feminisms have done a lot with what they had to create shelters. I also detected a bit of victim-blaming in one part.
She also has a whiff of that White Person Knows Everything thing...where even though she mentions the work of people of colour, her one reference to Angela Davis in terms of prison abolitionism (because how could you not) is pretty reductive. In other words she could have done better to integrate the words of the activists and scholars and writers who came before her -- especially people of colour. Frankly the ones who have been the butt of feminist and neoliberal responses have been the pioneers in analysis and praxis.
I also don't care for her one-dimensional approach to feminism sometimes which she needs to bolster her argument as counter-critique.
I like that she menioned Incite! But the different approaches that Incite! chapters and the writing that has stemmed from the groups would have been more useful.
Still I highly recommend it.
Bumiller argues that the increased criminalisation in relation to sexual violence and domestic violence i.e. the sometimes feminist faith in legal reform, the reliance on the state to provide services and on funding of feminist services, the medical model approach to treating and supporting victims and survivors, and the exporting of feminist human rights principles, of practice and through the military to Global South countries (my pet feminist peeve) overall does not support victims and survivors of both forms of violence. Instead:
*the victims or survivors are often criminalised -- especially if they are women of colour,
*therapeutic interventions are often useless, instead of flexible and holistic responses -- the victim or survivor has to fit into a box regarding every aspect of the body,
*the body becomes of a site of increased scrutiny and invasiveness,
*men of colour are across the board criminalised etc.
If you've read a bit about sexual violence and responses from different institutions then not much will be new...but Bumiller tries to create some sort of paradigm shift through arguing that we must resist increased criminalisation while not relying on community responses to sexual assault as the only or best solution. She does this through breaking down every aspect of state responses.
The strongest chapters -- outstanding really, are chapters 4 and 5. 6 is great too.
I loved reading about Donna, a Black woman and how she handled the state from her interviews. It was also amazing to read about how refuges started off with the ethos that being a mother was a (powerful) identity to create a new life rather than what neoliberalism and state surveillance have promoted -- which is to YOU MUST ESCAPE HIM TO BE A GOOD MOTHER, if you DON'T GO, the state will take your kids off you, parenting classes!, fulfil these criteria to be a good mother...etc.
My biggest criticisms are that in the first third of the book, while it does give feminism the big kick in the arse that it needs -- is it over attributes causation and amount of influence that feminism had re: sexual violence and domestic violence that it could create the cultural conditions which have led to increased criminalisation. I think some feminist responses have gone along with this and not incorporated or not given a shit about racially marginalised groups of women and I think feminisms have done a lot with what they had to create shelters. I also detected a bit of victim-blaming in one part.
She also has a whiff of that White Person Knows Everything thing...where even though she mentions the work of people of colour, her one reference to Angela Davis in terms of prison abolitionism (because how could you not) is pretty reductive. In other words she could have done better to integrate the words of the activists and scholars and writers who came before her -- especially people of colour. Frankly the ones who have been the butt of feminist and neoliberal responses have been the pioneers in analysis and praxis.
I also don't care for her one-dimensional approach to feminism sometimes which she needs to bolster her argument as counter-critique.
I like that she menioned Incite! But the different approaches that Incite! chapters and the writing that has stemmed from the groups would have been more useful.
Still I highly recommend it.
October 24, 2015
I have worked and volunteered for two different non profits that provide services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence and based on these experiences some of Kristin Bumillers arguments were not satisfying. These two non profits shared a foundational belief that a victim of sexual assault and domestic violence do not need couples counseling or therapy. Bumillers writes that social workers and advocates recommend victims engage in couples counseling with an abuser. Bumiller made some good points about the consequences of criminalizing sexual assault and domestic violence. I would like to see what alternatives to criminalization could be but understand it was beyond the scope of this book.
Read
April 9, 2009HIT MEN—AND WOMEN?
R. Dianne Bartlow
A Review of Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse
By Linda G. Mills
Basic Books
And In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement Against Sexual Violence
By Kristin Bumiller
Duke University Press
Are women as violent as men? Can the justice system combat domestic violence effectively? Is restorative justice the solution? Linda Mills examines these questions in her investigation of the myths and assumptions surrounding intimate violence.
Of those assaulted violently each year, 1.5 million are women—but women can be as violent as men, says Mills. Resistance to this idea is understandable. The battered-women’s and feminist movements have successfully framed “intimate” abuse as a one-sided problem that involves aggressive men who abuse women “because they can.” While this captures the perceived sexist nature of the abuse, it fails to acknowledge women’s contribution, according to Mills.
“Although homicide statistics report that women are far more frequently killed by intimate partners than men are, another trend suggests that a different pattern may emerge in the next several years,” she writes. Mills also points to Department of Justice statistics revealing that between 1991 and 2000, the number of girls under 18 convicted of aggravated assault crimes increased 44 percent, while the rate among their male peers decreased by 16 percent. Both male and female aggression must be confronted if we are to have any hope of combating the violence in our society, she writes.
Mills’ thinking has provoked hostility, but she is undeterred in her belief that solutions can be found in community-based dispute resolutions, like couples counseling, for those clients who find value in this therapeutic approach. She also endorses the more controversial “restorative justice,” which brings the parties together to discuss the effects of the crime. Used as a way to promote reconciliation after cases of extreme ethnic violence, such as in South Africa and Rwanda, its goal is to promote healing and develop insights on what happened and why, “so that everyone can come to terms with the past and alter the course of the future.”
Kristin Bumiller, on the other hand, challenges the assertion that women are as violent as men in intimate relationships. In an Abusive State critiques feminism’s problematic alliance with the neoliberal state, and worries about relying on the coercive power of government to ensure women’s safety. She acknowledges that the feminist-state alliance is largely unavoidable, since battered-women’s shelters rely on the police to help keep their clients safe, and agrees it’s helpful that teachers, doctors and therapists must report suspected domestic violence. But one result of increased surveillance is that victims can be punished for their “failure to protect” their children from viewing the domestic violence they themselves suffered. Shelter residents must apply for state benefits to show they’re taking steps to self-sufficiency, but “these requirements entangle women in an increasingly value-laden welfare program tied to the promotion of the nuclear family…and distrust of women as mothers,” writes Bumiller. Additionally, in conjoint therapy models, violence is recast as a communication disorder, and traumatized women are pressed by therapists to convince their spouses to participate. And she believes the restorative justice solution can leave women at particular risk, especially when they choose to stay in violent families.
While Mills offers a heartfelt view of how forgiveness can be a tool of empowerment and healing, Bumiller highlights the unfortunate conditions under which women seek help, particularly from state institutions. She calls for a feminist vision that addresses human dignity and helps women negotiate their empowerment within a dismantled social welfare system.
---
R. DIANNE BARTLOW is an assistant professor of gender and women’s studies at California State University, Northridge.
R. Dianne Bartlow
A Review of Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse
By Linda G. Mills
Basic Books
And In an Abusive State: How Neoliberalism Appropriated the Feminist Movement Against Sexual Violence
By Kristin Bumiller
Duke University Press
Are women as violent as men? Can the justice system combat domestic violence effectively? Is restorative justice the solution? Linda Mills examines these questions in her investigation of the myths and assumptions surrounding intimate violence.
Of those assaulted violently each year, 1.5 million are women—but women can be as violent as men, says Mills. Resistance to this idea is understandable. The battered-women’s and feminist movements have successfully framed “intimate” abuse as a one-sided problem that involves aggressive men who abuse women “because they can.” While this captures the perceived sexist nature of the abuse, it fails to acknowledge women’s contribution, according to Mills.
“Although homicide statistics report that women are far more frequently killed by intimate partners than men are, another trend suggests that a different pattern may emerge in the next several years,” she writes. Mills also points to Department of Justice statistics revealing that between 1991 and 2000, the number of girls under 18 convicted of aggravated assault crimes increased 44 percent, while the rate among their male peers decreased by 16 percent. Both male and female aggression must be confronted if we are to have any hope of combating the violence in our society, she writes.
Mills’ thinking has provoked hostility, but she is undeterred in her belief that solutions can be found in community-based dispute resolutions, like couples counseling, for those clients who find value in this therapeutic approach. She also endorses the more controversial “restorative justice,” which brings the parties together to discuss the effects of the crime. Used as a way to promote reconciliation after cases of extreme ethnic violence, such as in South Africa and Rwanda, its goal is to promote healing and develop insights on what happened and why, “so that everyone can come to terms with the past and alter the course of the future.”
Kristin Bumiller, on the other hand, challenges the assertion that women are as violent as men in intimate relationships. In an Abusive State critiques feminism’s problematic alliance with the neoliberal state, and worries about relying on the coercive power of government to ensure women’s safety. She acknowledges that the feminist-state alliance is largely unavoidable, since battered-women’s shelters rely on the police to help keep their clients safe, and agrees it’s helpful that teachers, doctors and therapists must report suspected domestic violence. But one result of increased surveillance is that victims can be punished for their “failure to protect” their children from viewing the domestic violence they themselves suffered. Shelter residents must apply for state benefits to show they’re taking steps to self-sufficiency, but “these requirements entangle women in an increasingly value-laden welfare program tied to the promotion of the nuclear family…and distrust of women as mothers,” writes Bumiller. Additionally, in conjoint therapy models, violence is recast as a communication disorder, and traumatized women are pressed by therapists to convince their spouses to participate. And she believes the restorative justice solution can leave women at particular risk, especially when they choose to stay in violent families.
While Mills offers a heartfelt view of how forgiveness can be a tool of empowerment and healing, Bumiller highlights the unfortunate conditions under which women seek help, particularly from state institutions. She calls for a feminist vision that addresses human dignity and helps women negotiate their empowerment within a dismantled social welfare system.
---
R. DIANNE BARTLOW is an assistant professor of gender and women’s studies at California State University, Northridge.
July 4, 2018
In an Abusive State is a careful criticism of how the feminist movement partners with the state to stop sexual violence in a way that undermines the very goals of our movement. It's not a novel argument, but Bumiller is so careful and considered when outlining her argumentation and evidence that this becomes a very useful book for reference. She should have engaged more fully with women of colour who have been working in this field for a long time as I definitely noticed the absence of certain academics and theorists that speak about similar things. I appreciated that her goal was not to tear down the feminist movement, but to improve it and make it better for women it is neglecting or actively harming.
November 25, 2021
okay what the hell … actually ended up being super disappointed in this one
i picked this up on recommendation of jackie wang bc she references it in carceral capitalism , so i was expecting it to be an explicitly abolitionist text, and it genuinely was up until the last chapter which was like the “what do we do about this???” chapter which literally was so underresearched, completely dismissive of RJ and didn’t even mention TJ, and then was basically like “abolition isn’t realistic for this type of violence” which i get is a complicated issue but the rest of the book was SO nuanced i’m really shocked this section was so poorly done
with that being said i do think the rest of the chapters are very important and well researched and such a good encapsulation of neoliberalisms / late capitalism’s effect on our society’s responses and reactions towards sexual assault, gender based violence , including domestic violence etc. i am glad i read the rest of it but ngl the beginning is now tainted by the fact i know she’s not an abolitionist now ? and i genuinely don’t know how you research and write on this topic and don’t conclude that abolition is the only way to not entrap woman effected by gender based violence further within the carceral state / punitive “justice” smh
i picked this up on recommendation of jackie wang bc she references it in carceral capitalism , so i was expecting it to be an explicitly abolitionist text, and it genuinely was up until the last chapter which was like the “what do we do about this???” chapter which literally was so underresearched, completely dismissive of RJ and didn’t even mention TJ, and then was basically like “abolition isn’t realistic for this type of violence” which i get is a complicated issue but the rest of the book was SO nuanced i’m really shocked this section was so poorly done
with that being said i do think the rest of the chapters are very important and well researched and such a good encapsulation of neoliberalisms / late capitalism’s effect on our society’s responses and reactions towards sexual assault, gender based violence , including domestic violence etc. i am glad i read the rest of it but ngl the beginning is now tainted by the fact i know she’s not an abolitionist now ? and i genuinely don’t know how you research and write on this topic and don’t conclude that abolition is the only way to not entrap woman effected by gender based violence further within the carceral state / punitive “justice” smh
January 11, 2020
this book was really compelling. i've read a lot of other work on this theme, particularly abolitionist critiques of feminist alliances with the punitive state, and this book offered different insights.
i liked the way she tracked neoliberal pressures on feminist campaigns and organisations, as well as on individual women themselves to conform to particular 'victim-centred' and 'therapeutic' models, so that any claim of collusion or co-option necessarily becomes more complicated. her point is that they developed within a neoliberal 'law and order' context, and that impacted their genesis and development. but it's not like she lets feminists off the hook fully either, she also critiques the dominant frameworks that have been deployed to effect state responses to issues of sexual violence: 'gender war' and human rights.
probably the most interesting aspect of this book is the critique (and examples) of administrative violence: how institutions, both mainstream and specific, intending to support women who have experienced sexual violence can retraumatise women and enact forms of social control and gendered regulation.
i liked the way she tracked neoliberal pressures on feminist campaigns and organisations, as well as on individual women themselves to conform to particular 'victim-centred' and 'therapeutic' models, so that any claim of collusion or co-option necessarily becomes more complicated. her point is that they developed within a neoliberal 'law and order' context, and that impacted their genesis and development. but it's not like she lets feminists off the hook fully either, she also critiques the dominant frameworks that have been deployed to effect state responses to issues of sexual violence: 'gender war' and human rights.
probably the most interesting aspect of this book is the critique (and examples) of administrative violence: how institutions, both mainstream and specific, intending to support women who have experienced sexual violence can retraumatise women and enact forms of social control and gendered regulation.
August 29, 2018
This book is a must-read for anyone opposed to sexual violence and looking for a solution to how to end it. While it only talks about the US, and the ways in which the US state imposes it will on other nations through globalisation and imperialism, its arguments are all true for Australia as well.
The Guardian has just published an investigation into Black deaths in custody in Australia, revealing that since 2008, more than 400 Indigenous people, men, women, and children, have died, or have been actively murdered, in police or prison custody.
Obviously, a huge part of this is racism--a continuation of the genocide of Aboriginal people that began with the continent being invaded by the British, massacres to clear land for farming, and 'remote communities' being evicted to make way for mines.
But part of what has allowed the rates of Black deaths in custody to continue is the high rates of Aboriginal people in custody. And part of what has allowed for these high rates of Aboriginal people in custody is the increased powers of police, laws to stop people being granted bail, laws to stop people being released from prison early, longer prison sentences being handed down by judges, more cops and more prisons, and a vast array of other 'law and order' measures.
These measures, while they disproportionally affect Indigenous people, affect anyone drawn into the net of the Australian police state. Because of these factors, the prison population in Australia, including those who have yet to be found guilty of anything, are booming far out of proportion with the growth in the general population.
And, unfortunately, the mainstream of the campaign against sexual violence has only helped boost the powers of the police state.
In particular, the prison population in Victoria rose to record levels following the public outcry in response to the assault and murder of Jill Meagher in Melbourne in 2012, along with a similar response to street violence in NSW.
Earlier in the 2000s, a racist anti-Lebanese police squad was set up to racially profile and target so-called 'Lebanese gangs', following two gang rapes. The racist mania whipped up be the government and the media not only led to state oppression of Arab and Asian migrants, but also to the Cronulla riot/pogrom in 2006 where men and women 'of Lebanese appearance' were violently assaulted.
In 2006, the Australian army invaded and occupied remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory in response to completely fabricated accounts of child abuse in these communities. This las led to children being malnourished as parents can no longer access food to feed them, and then to these children being stolen from their families and placed in foster care.
The Australian government also participated in the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, justifying these war crimes largely on the basis of standing up for the rights of women in these countries. The resulting mass slaughter of civilians and destruction of infrastructure has definitely not improved the lives of women in these countries.
As these examples show, the state uses its supposed opposition to sexual violence as a cover for increased repression and state violence.
While Bumiller's book does not offer a complete worked out theory of the capitalist state, the evidence and argument it presents fits in with a Marxist analysis. Marx understood that the state, far from being a neutral arbiter of conflicting interests within society, is a tool of class oppression--under capitalism, this means the oppression of the proletariat (the majority of the Earth's population, who do all the work) by the bourgeoisie (the ruling class, who do nothing and live off the profits stolen off the workers). The proletariat can not use the capitalist state to advance its interests.
It is not in the interest of the state to truly combat sexual violence. For example: The state has recently privatised a Rape and Domestic Violence hotline, meaning a company is profiting off rape. New private womens' prisons are opening up, so a company is profiting off the incarceration of vulnerable, mostly poor, and likely disproportionately Black women, who will be violently and forcefully strip-searched by guards.
But mostly, it is because sexual violence is a product of capitalism, and the capitalist state would have to work towards its own overthrow to truly challenge sexual violence, which it will not do. Sexism is necessary to capitalism. Women provide the free labour of birthing and rearing each new generation of workers who's labour is exploited by the bosses. The gender pay-gap is essential to the profits made by those same bosses. Sexualised imagery is used ubiquitously throughout advertising, making more money for bosses. Without sexism, this exploitation would not be tolerated.
The violence of the system of capitalism, where, for example, police attack pickets of striking workers and soldiers are lauded for invading other nations, leads to a generalised culture of violence.
The alienation of people under capitalism, where workers are forced to compete with their peers for jobs they don't want, making money for bosses, just to feed and house themselves, leads to a climate where people feel antagonistic towards each other, and see each other as less than human.
It is the role of the state to protect the system which exploits workers to make profits for bosses, and this system is what creates the conditions for sexual violence to occur, which is why the state can never be used to abolish it.
This book does a fantastic job of arguing against looking to the state to fight against sexual violence, and instead looking to grassroots organising.
The Guardian has just published an investigation into Black deaths in custody in Australia, revealing that since 2008, more than 400 Indigenous people, men, women, and children, have died, or have been actively murdered, in police or prison custody.
Obviously, a huge part of this is racism--a continuation of the genocide of Aboriginal people that began with the continent being invaded by the British, massacres to clear land for farming, and 'remote communities' being evicted to make way for mines.
But part of what has allowed the rates of Black deaths in custody to continue is the high rates of Aboriginal people in custody. And part of what has allowed for these high rates of Aboriginal people in custody is the increased powers of police, laws to stop people being granted bail, laws to stop people being released from prison early, longer prison sentences being handed down by judges, more cops and more prisons, and a vast array of other 'law and order' measures.
These measures, while they disproportionally affect Indigenous people, affect anyone drawn into the net of the Australian police state. Because of these factors, the prison population in Australia, including those who have yet to be found guilty of anything, are booming far out of proportion with the growth in the general population.
And, unfortunately, the mainstream of the campaign against sexual violence has only helped boost the powers of the police state.
In particular, the prison population in Victoria rose to record levels following the public outcry in response to the assault and murder of Jill Meagher in Melbourne in 2012, along with a similar response to street violence in NSW.
Earlier in the 2000s, a racist anti-Lebanese police squad was set up to racially profile and target so-called 'Lebanese gangs', following two gang rapes. The racist mania whipped up be the government and the media not only led to state oppression of Arab and Asian migrants, but also to the Cronulla riot/pogrom in 2006 where men and women 'of Lebanese appearance' were violently assaulted.
In 2006, the Australian army invaded and occupied remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory in response to completely fabricated accounts of child abuse in these communities. This las led to children being malnourished as parents can no longer access food to feed them, and then to these children being stolen from their families and placed in foster care.
The Australian government also participated in the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, justifying these war crimes largely on the basis of standing up for the rights of women in these countries. The resulting mass slaughter of civilians and destruction of infrastructure has definitely not improved the lives of women in these countries.
As these examples show, the state uses its supposed opposition to sexual violence as a cover for increased repression and state violence.
While Bumiller's book does not offer a complete worked out theory of the capitalist state, the evidence and argument it presents fits in with a Marxist analysis. Marx understood that the state, far from being a neutral arbiter of conflicting interests within society, is a tool of class oppression--under capitalism, this means the oppression of the proletariat (the majority of the Earth's population, who do all the work) by the bourgeoisie (the ruling class, who do nothing and live off the profits stolen off the workers). The proletariat can not use the capitalist state to advance its interests.
It is not in the interest of the state to truly combat sexual violence. For example: The state has recently privatised a Rape and Domestic Violence hotline, meaning a company is profiting off rape. New private womens' prisons are opening up, so a company is profiting off the incarceration of vulnerable, mostly poor, and likely disproportionately Black women, who will be violently and forcefully strip-searched by guards.
But mostly, it is because sexual violence is a product of capitalism, and the capitalist state would have to work towards its own overthrow to truly challenge sexual violence, which it will not do. Sexism is necessary to capitalism. Women provide the free labour of birthing and rearing each new generation of workers who's labour is exploited by the bosses. The gender pay-gap is essential to the profits made by those same bosses. Sexualised imagery is used ubiquitously throughout advertising, making more money for bosses. Without sexism, this exploitation would not be tolerated.
The violence of the system of capitalism, where, for example, police attack pickets of striking workers and soldiers are lauded for invading other nations, leads to a generalised culture of violence.
The alienation of people under capitalism, where workers are forced to compete with their peers for jobs they don't want, making money for bosses, just to feed and house themselves, leads to a climate where people feel antagonistic towards each other, and see each other as less than human.
It is the role of the state to protect the system which exploits workers to make profits for bosses, and this system is what creates the conditions for sexual violence to occur, which is why the state can never be used to abolish it.
This book does a fantastic job of arguing against looking to the state to fight against sexual violence, and instead looking to grassroots organising.
June 17, 2020
Giving this a 3 feels weird, but it just feels dated - even for 2008. I struggle to understand how you could write this book and spend about a page, towards the end, mentioning INCITE!. INCITE! was active before 2008 and has a deeper analysis than what's presented in this book. I have some other critiques, but meh. Still, I found many aspects of the book helpful and and insightful and am glad I took the time to read it.
December 15, 2010
This book takes a strong critique of the neo-liberal partnering that feminists have made with the state- and how it has affected victims, how it reinforces racism, and how it in general does not get to the root of the issue. The writing can be dense and academic, but overall it is a good and important read.
June 6, 2022
TW: Mention of sexual violence
This book was instrumental in showing me the connection between institutional violence and sexual violence. It also made me connect the welfare state to survivorship and how our state response to sexual violence became what it is today. The way we frame rights/human rights over dignity changes how we think about gender based violence. Furthermore, the legal system is set up to examine animus, or intent, to be found guilty. I did not agree with everything Bumiller argued, but I do believe this book is instrumental in opening up conversations about what it means to be a victim at the hands of an abuser and at the arms of an abusive institution that does not seek to protect you.
This book was instrumental in showing me the connection between institutional violence and sexual violence. It also made me connect the welfare state to survivorship and how our state response to sexual violence became what it is today. The way we frame rights/human rights over dignity changes how we think about gender based violence. Furthermore, the legal system is set up to examine animus, or intent, to be found guilty. I did not agree with everything Bumiller argued, but I do believe this book is instrumental in opening up conversations about what it means to be a victim at the hands of an abuser and at the arms of an abusive institution that does not seek to protect you.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews