ChapterPDF Available


This chapter provides an overview of developments in feminist criminology in Australia and New Zealand. It considers the field’s different feminist epistemological commitments of empiricism, standpointism, and deconstruction. Specifically, it summarises key concepts and foci in feminist criminological research, tracing its longstanding empirical strengths. The chapter documents criticisms of its blind spots and attempts at remedying these shortcomings. In doing so, the author discusses the distinct features of feminist criminological perspectives in Australia and New Zealand. The chapter also explores how scholars are increasingly attentive to intersectional, postcolonial, and transnational dimensions of feminist criminological concerns, acknowledging the challenges and tensions of these efforts.
Kathryn Henne
Feminist critiques of criminology’s embedded male-centred biases emerged as early as the
1970s and 1980s.1 Criminologists in Australia and New Zealand2 were notable contributors
(see Daly 1989; Hancock 1980; Naffine 1987; Wundersitz, Naffine, and Gale 1988). They
documented the shortcomings of mainstream criminology, particularly its limited
engagement with women’s encounters with crime and justice systems, and elaborated how
criminological theories and empiricism perpetuated an androcentric vantage point that
privileged masculine perspectives (Cain 1990; Carlen 1992). Feminist criminology in the
1990s had shifted beyond questions focused primarily on women as a social group to include
systematic analyses of gender, power, and social difference. By the mid-2000s, feminist
criminology was a mature subfield of criminology, as evidenced by the establishment of a
dedicated journal.
Feminist criminology is often commended for its empirical sophistication. However,
there are notable criticisms. Specifically, scholars acknowledge its tendency to prioritise
critiques of gender-blind theories and analyses (Carrington 2008), and its lack of theoretical
engagement with broader developments in feminist scholarship (Haney 2000). Critics and
proponents alike sometimes overlook the diversity of feminist criminology. To characterise
feminist criminology—or feminism more generally—as a uniform subfield of intellectual
thought is a misnomer (see Naffine 1997). Scholars in Australia and New Zealand
acknowledge the variety of feminist perspectives that have and could inform criminological
enquiry (e.g., Daly 2010; Henne and Troshynski 2013). Moreover, they concede that “theory
based singularly on gendercannot “explain how women of colour, rural women, Indigenous
women, and women from impoverished backgrounds are uniquely susceptible to policing,
criminalisation and imprisonment” (Carrington, Hogg, and Sozzo 2016, 10).
Recognising the plurality of feminist criminological perspectives is important, as is
consideration of their points of convergence and departure. This chapter reflects on core
tenets of feminist criminology in a way that acknowledges their multiplicity and shared
concerns. It outlines distinct features of feminist criminology in Australia and New Zealand,
attending to earlier concerns as well as new developments. In doing so, the chapter points out
foundational tensions underpinning feminist criminology—namely its traditional embrace of
empiricism over wider theoretical engagement—and how different researchers negotiate
those strains. It addresses how the resulting frictions can be both restrictive and productive.
This review considers research conducted in both Australia and New Zealand and the
growing focus on transnational connections within the region to ground its discussion.
Overall, it summarises how scholars in Australia and New Zealand approach the feminist
criminological mandate to transgress and transform its parent discipline (Cain 1990).
Feminist foundations
The foundations of feminist criminology highlight a diversity of approaches. Feminist
criminologists uphold different epistemological commitments, which Gelsthrope (2002)
usefully describes as empiricism, that is, a concern for understanding reality; standpointism,
that means generating knowledge from marginalised viewpoints; and deconstruction, which
is breaking down existing categories of knowledge. All three commitments inform feminist
criminology in Australia and New Zealand. Although these commitments can appear as
damning critiques of each other, the history of the subfield reveals that the tensions between
them can yield productive reconsiderations of feminism’s contribution to criminology.
The origins of feminist criminology in Australia and New Zealand can be traced, at
least in print form, to the early 1980s, with the publication of Hancock’s (1980) gendered
analysis of juvenile justice and the anthology, and Mukherjee and Scutt’s (1981) Women and
Crime. The first Australian feminist criminological monograph, Female Crime: The
Construction of Women in Criminology (Naffine 1987), articulated core concerns of the
subfield. In particular, Naffine (1987, 11) drew attention to how criminology’s preoccupation
with the delinquent “rogue male” prompted a narrow understanding of women; that is, it
mainly provided insight into women and their experiences vis-à-vis their relationships to
men. Moreover, as Naffine (1996) later wrote, a core aim of incorporating feminism within
criminology was not only to refute critically and expand upon limited constructions of crime
and delinquency, but also to instil values of reflexivity. This commitment to reflexivity was
twofold; in relation to how researchers conceived the women they studied, and in relation to
researchers’ positionality in generating knowledge. Specifically, Naffine (1996, 4) argued for
a feminist criminology that is introspective and incorporates “precisely the same sort of
critical scrutiny it has applied to others.” She warned against the credulous embrace of
empiricism, an attribute characteristic of mainstream criminology and its masculinist
Naffine’s warning yielded a difficult friction for scholars to grapple with; at least in
the formative years of feminist criminology. Feminist responses to the male dominance in the
field included research that generated knowledge about women in their own right, not simply
through the lens of their relationships with men or through the lens of narrow criminological
theories. Many scholars developed and carried out a number of studies aimed at comparing
men’s and women’s encounters with various aspects and mechanisms of the criminal justice
system.3 While Naffine (1996) and others criticised many of these studies for failing to
contest or rethink core tenets of criminology, others—such as Adler (1995)—argued that they
were a necessary precondition for more sophisticated feminist analyses. In addition, having
empirical evidence—even with its limitations—provided a platform to raise awareness of
women’s experiences with crime and the criminal justice system, and to garner wider
criminological support. For example, using data from the first national survey of crime
victims in Australia, researchers were able to provide one of the first general pictures of
women’s victimisation, explicitly inviting feminist scholars to conduct further and more
nuanced analyses (Braithwaite and Biles 1980). Early feminist criminological scholarship
thus made some important inroads: it moved aspects of women’s encounters with crime and
violence into mainstream and public discourses, particularly in relation to victimisation.
Criticisms of foundational feminist criminological studies sparked the development of
new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. Critics suggested that by using
criminology’s accepted methods, concepts, and measures, some foundational feminist
criminological scholarship actually threatened to uphold and reify the discipline’s embedded
androcentric values. In short, they argued for a rejection of positivism. As Carrington (2008)
explains, feminist standpoint theory offered an alternative mode of enquiry. Standpoint
theory relies on generating knowledge from the subject-position of women and marginalised
persons so as to glean more robust understandings of power and differing social realities
(Hartsock 1987).
Feminist standpoint theory posited a different set of epistemological commitments
than androcentric criminology. It was not as a corrective lens for criminology. Rather, it was
condemnation of the discipline. Standpointism, however, became the subject of critique for
failing the account for the diversity of persons who occupy the category of women
(Carrington 2008). Despite calling for radical alternatives, accounts informed by standpoint
theory still tended to privilege Eurocentric, cisgender4, and middle-class perspectives as
sources of knowledge. They often negated cultural, sexual, socio-economic, and ethnic
differences (Carrington 2008), all of which were important to the growing recognition of
burgeoning multicultural communities in Australia and New Zealand.
By the early 1990s, a number of deconstructive analyses offered different modes of
querying criminology’s categorical assumptions (see Howe 1994; Threadgold 1993; Young
1996). They took aim at breaking down foundational categories, seeing them as part of a
broader field of power relationships not necessarily bound to a particular notion of gender.
These streams of feminist scholarship, according to Daly (2010), maintained poststructuralist
sensibilities. They interrogated how various discourses shaped narrations of women and their
bodies. Significantly for feminist criminology, deconstruction facilitated a broader scope of
enquiry including law, juridical artefacts, popular culture, masculinity, images, and other
cultural influences that inform understandings of crime, deviance, and victimisation. Young
(1996), for instance, unpacked crime as an object by demonstrating that—despite
criminological attempts to know it as an act—crime is better understood as imagined through
texts and images. She argued that criminology comes to understand crime at the level of
representation, not enactment. Her work illuminated how crime is a discursive object of
enquiry. Although offering new modes of problematizing power and social difference,
deconstruction had its shortcomings. They included a methodological reliance on close
readings of individual case studies and a privileging of law for social change (Carrington
2008). Moreover, deconstruction did not necessarily translate in changes to prevailing
Early Australian feminist criminology has other notable blind spots. Key among them
is a lack of critical engagement with questions of Indigeneity and how intersectional forms of
marginalisation become implicated in the criminalisation of women and girls (Carrington and
Hogg 2012). Carrington and Hogg (2012) attribute this oversight to embedded Eurocentric
beliefs about women as a social group. In relation to New Zealand, their observation also has
value, especially in light of longstanding criticisms that Pākehā feminism misinterprets Māori
women’s values, knowledges, and experiences (see Irwin 1992; Te Awekotuku 1991). These
criticisms provide important insights into the epistemological tensions of feminist
criminology. According to Young (1992, 291), the subfield has a history of struggling to
articulate “what might be distinctively feminist about feminist criminology” and to develop
“a paradigm that can encompass more than a series of oppositions.” Further, there is a general
tendency to overlook other feminist approaches for sources of innovation. For example, it is
important to note that Australian and New Zealand-based feminists in other fields were
explicitly grappling with the multi-faceted challenge of engaging difference, even though
feminist criminology was slower to do so (e.g., Behrendt 1993; Ram 1993). The precise
reasons for this are, at best, speculative. However, it is clear that feminist criminology’s
preoccupation with correcting the androcentric biases of its parent discipline has hampered
interdisciplinary dialogues with other feminist approaches.
Although a series of critiques marks the history of feminist criminology, there are a
number of notable contributions and successes. This reflection on the foundations of feminist
criminology in Australia and New Zealand demonstrates Daly and Chesney-Lind’s (1988)
important point that feminism—as a project—is far from a unified endeavour. Rather, it is
fragmented and often contested.
Contemporary issues
As an established subfield, feminist criminology illustrates the benefits of making
“richer contextual analysis” the norm “rather than the exception” (Flavin 2001, 273). It also
provides important guidance in seeking to understand the relationships between gendered
discourses and lived encounters with crime and violence. Criminologists in Australia and
New Zealand continue to make notable contributions to topics that are central to feminist
political mobilisation, such as concerns around violence against women. In fact, feminist
criminology has ensured that the diversity of victims’ experiences and interests receive
critical scholarly attention. Scholarship on rape survivors shows that state investment in
improving legal and procedural responses alone does not yield better outcomes for victims.
The presumed progression from “victim to survivor” is not linear. Rather, it can include
instances of re-victimisation stemming from interactions with the justice system and even
with support services (Jordan 2001; 2013). With regard to violence against women in a
broader sense, feminist criminology highlights the importance of paying critical empirical
attention to differences among women, and to historical and contextual conditions (Cook and
Bessant 1997). Accordingly, feminist criminological work advances arguments for why and
how violence prevention strategies require more than short-term interventions focusing on
individuals. They should be multi-level responses that attend to structural, normative, and
local influences (Carmody and Carrington 2000). Research in this vein demonstrates how the
criminal justice system is itself made up of multifaceted gendered spaces. This recognition
has led to “more sobering appraisal[s] of what, in fact, criminal law and justice system
practices can do to achieve women’s and feminist goals” (Daly and Stubbs 2006, 23).
This body of feminist research raises questions about intersectionality, that is, how
forms of discrimination and oppression arise out of interlocking systems of power such as—
but not necessarily limited to—gender, race, and class. In other words, women of colour
endure fundamentally different forms of oppression than their White counterparts, even
though they share a common identification as women. Although feminist criminologists have
called for a stronger commitment to intersectional analysis, this push, as Daly (2010, 237)
points out, is “more an aspiration for the future than a research practice today.” That said,
many feminist criminologists in Australia and New Zealand actively pursue its incorporation
(see Cunneen and Stubbs 1997; Daly and Stubbs 2006; Ham 2016; Henne and Troshynski
2013; Pickering and Ham 2014; Stubbs 2011). For instance, Cunneen and Stubbs’ (1997)
analysis of the high victimisation rate of Filipino women in Australia highlights the value of
intersectionality. They demonstrate how class differences, hegemonic White Australian
masculinity, orientalist myths about Asian women’s sensibilities, and globalisation all inform
this high rate. Cunneen and Stubbs point to how violence can ensue when Filipino women do
not act in accordance with their socially prescribed gender roles, sometimes leading to their
deaths at the hands of partners.
Studies of Indigenous communities depict different intersectional contours. Stubbs
(2011) condemns the fact that there is limited research on Aboriginal women’s victimisation,
offending, and criminalisation, even though they are grossly over-represented in the
Australian criminal justice system. Specifically, she states that this pattern reflects “enduring
and repeated failures to pay sufficient regard to Aboriginal women”, suggesting the need for
an intersectional analysis; with Indigenous women “fully involved in shaping the meanings
that emerge” (Stubbs 2011, 59). Although there is ongoing research into how courts represent
and assess Indigenous women’s experiences and circumstances (Behrendt and Anthony
2016), Stubbs’ call remains largely unheeded. Analysis of cases in which battered Indigenous
women are charged with homicide for killing abusers do reveal important insights. It shows
that widespread forms of marginalisation become interpreted as “indicators of personal
deficits”, thereby discounting the potential influence of structural conditions and displacing
responsibility primarily onto individuals (Stubbs and Tolmie 2008, 138). Considering broader
trends in criminal sentencing, Anthony (2013) documents how judicial discretion comes to
reflect engrained and essentialist White beliefs about Indigenous difference. In particular, law
reifies Indigenous culture and crimes by Indigenous people as threatening. She concludes that
better outcomes are only possible if Indigenous communities have more power over dispute
resolution and reconciliation. Even then, that inclusion is just a small step towards
recognising differences among Indigenous communities, which vary in terms of culture and
access to resources, and addressing the legacies of colonialism and occupation.
Beyond examinations of women’s experiences of crime and justice systems, studies
of masculinity bring attention to other gendered dynamics. Recent work acknowledges that
addressing masculinity in relation to crime, although important, can materialise as “one
dimensional” (Salter 2015, 1). Reflecting on how violence prevention campaigns render
masculinity as a determining factor of violence against women, Salter (2015) contends that
they prioritise gender inequality as social determinant. Casting masculinity in this limited
way perpetuates essentialist notions of gender that discount how interconnected inequalities,
politics and societal change can contribute to crime and violence. This point aligns with
earlier research on juvenile justice by Cunneen and White (1995). They outline an agenda for
studying hegemonic masculinity, and how it contributes to the normalising and devaluing of
certain forms of behaviour, which, in turn, have a notable bearing on crime and delinquency.
In fact, Cunneen and White explicitly call for further analysis of “the complex positioning of
individuals with respect to gender, class, ethnicity and ‘race’” (72). Although
intersectionality is still not the predominant analytical approach to criminological studies of
masculinity, existing research does reveal how official analyses overlook the higher rates of
violence in rural Australia, and how frontier masculinities coalesce with other structural
conditions to underpin them (Carrington and Scott 2008).
Feminist criminology in Australia and New Zealand is increasingly attentive to
globalised dilemmas. The securitisation of national borders contributes to criminological
concerns linked to transnational movement, such as trafficking and migration. Australian
feminist criminologists bring attention to the plight of non-citizens—primarily those who are
women, asylum seekers, and detainees—and the conditions informing border patrol (see
Pickering 2010; Segrave, Milivojevic, and Pickering 2009; Weber and Pickering 2011). This
scholarship illuminates the politics and consequences of criminalising certain kinds of
migrants—namely asylum seekers and migrants who come to Australia by boat—and of
related carceral practices—such as the mandatory detention of these particular groups. With
more women dying while crossing the physical barriers of countries, there are gendered
implications linked to “social practices within families, and within countries of origin and
transit, as well as the practices of smuggling markets” (Pickering and Cochrane 2013, 27).
Migration’s impact is not limited to formal engagement with authorities. Keeping in
mind that many residents of Australia and New Zealand are foreign-born, it is important to
consider the diversity of cultural influences informing practices and understandings of law,
crime and delinquency. Mayeda and Vijaykumar’s (2015) research with young women of
Asian and Middle Eastern heritage living in Auckland serves as a case in point. Their
findings demonstrate how societal pressures to assimilate combine with familial desires—to
maintain tradition—and influence beliefs around gender and intimate partner violence (IPV).
In addition to “balancing a space between mainstream western culture and their parents’
traditional cultures” and navigating “the typical tensions that accompany early romantic
relationships”, participants have “vague understandings of what constitutes IPV” (216–217).
“Personal backgrounds where gender inequality and IPV have been taught across multiple
settings, and cultural values … make discussion of intimate relationships extremely difficult”
(216–217). The researchers resist the orientalist tendency to characterise their “ethnic
communities as violently patriarchal” (217), stating that doing so would misrepresent the
diversity of participants’ experiences and reflections while affirming racist beliefs. Their
point exemplifies the feminist criminological prescription of reflexivity and the challenges
manifest in following through on the ethical demands of that commitment.
With regard to other transnational concerns, feminist criminology has contributed
significantly to research on sex trafficking, with research in Australia and New Zealand being
distinguished by its critical analysis and empirical focus. This scholarship points to the limits
and consequences of anti-trafficking frameworks in practice (Segrave et al. 2009), and how
migratory and crime-control systems struggle to distinguish sex work from trafficking
(Pickering and Ham 2014). Further, it unearths tacit assumptions about sex work and how the
boundaries of legality and illegality come to inform sex workers’ everyday lives. Ham
(2016), for instance, documents how narrow perceptions of the migrant sex worker
misrepresent the myriad experiences that women who are assumed to be migrant sex workers
can have. In doing so, Ham’s study embraces a hybrid of feminist criminological traditions:
an empiricism informed by standpoint perspectives and deconstructive elements.
Armstrong’s (2016) research on sex workers in New Zealand, where sex work was
decriminalised in 2003, strikes a similar epistemological balance in documenting the
adjoining shifts in the policing of street-based sex workers. In sum, many contemporary
analyses attempt to reconcile the three distinct approaches that shaped the foundations of
feminist criminology.
In light of globalised changes, feminist scholars in the region acknowledge the
potential limitations of intersectionality, calling for theoretical innovation and refinement
(Henne and Troshynski 2013). Henne and Troshynski (2013) contend that unpacking
complex dynamics of difference—especially against the backdrop of transnationalism—
requires adapting intersectionality. Doing so, they argue, has the potential to advance feminist
criminological agendas aimed at disrupting and changing criminology. Carrington, Hogg, and
Sozzo (2016, 10) reiterate their point by describing intersectionality as a possible “theoretical
antidote to feminism’s metropolitanism”; one that “is a significant advance on essentialist
feminist frameworks that privileged a unified mono-cultural, trans-historical conception of
gender.” In other words, it has the potential to undermine criminology’s metropolitan
disposition, and to more aptly unveil the postcolonial dimensions of crime, victimisation, and
criminological knowledge production.
Contemporary calls to embrace transnational frameworks retain feminist
criminology’s foundational concerns around inequality, although new challenges abound.
With more people regularly interacting online, using social media networks, and engaging
with the Internet of Things5, criminology cannot ignore the digital domains of everyday life.
Feminist criminologists bring attention to online interactions as sites of sexual victimisation
and gender-based violence (see Henry and Powell 2015; Milivojevic and McGovern 2014).
Salter (2013) argues that digital spaces are not simply sites of domination; they also offer
room to challenge and rearticulate popularised narratives of sexual assault. Sometimes such
discussions even influence mainstream media outlets and formal proceedings. In doing so,
they reveal that presumed distinctions between virtual and real domains are not as clear as
they may appear at first blush. Feminist criminology, which has a strong history of asking
questions around distinctions between private and public, is well equipped to interrogate
them as constitutive relationships.
This chapter highlights the productive tensions underpinning feminist criminology in
Australia and New Zealand, and how they manifest in contemporary scholarship. Similar
tensions animate feminist political scholarship in other domains. Writing on New Zealand,
Larner and Spoonley (1997) provide an important reminder about how such tensions enable
dialogic movement. Critical of Pākehā feminism for its racist disavowal of postcolonial
legacies (see Irwin 1992; Te Awekotuku 1991), Māori scholars promoted the importance of
mana wahine, which is often understood as Māori feminist discourses. In calling for spaces
that cultivate and value Māori women’s knowledges, they also shifted other feminist
discourses in New Zealand (Simmonds 2011). In the move for greater inclusion, fissures
nonetheless remain and come to inform feminist scholarship and praxis.
With the growing awareness of globalised social problems, it is perhaps no surprise
that feminist criminology in Australia and New Zealand increasingly embraces transnational,
intersectional, and postcolonial perspectives, but also maintains commitments to capturing
lived experience. While recent calls for a Southern criminology emphasise the need to rethink
the epistemological and geopolitical dimensions of research, it is important to note that
critical Indigenous scholars have made similar appeals for years (see Simmonds 2011;
Watson 2015). Yet, they are rarely acknowledged or cited in feminist criminological work.
This disjuncture is symptomatic of the hegemonic challenges of pursuing Southern theory in
a scholarly world dominated by Northern ontologies. It poses a core challenge for feminist
criminology: to do more than extend its study of marginalised peoples as subjects, but also to
recognise and incorporate other knowledges in ways that value the producers of those
knowledges. Such endeavours would greatly enhance emergent efforts by feminist
criminologists to unveil the embedded ways White privilege shapes criminological enquiry
(see Henne and Shah 2015).
The critical turn to questions of difference opens spaces for new and productive
fissures within feminist criminology, and to engage other interdisciplinary perspectives. In
relation to multiculturalism, for instance, Pacific studies scholars offer historical, analytical
and empirical insights that can inform criminological analyses of Pasifika peoples and of the
distinct dimensions of their transnational communities and histories (see Diaz and Kauanui
2001; Teaiwa and Slatter 2013; Wood 2003). In a distinctly different vein, the growth of
‘queer’ criminology shares critical elements of feminist criminology in that it aims to redress
and change criminology. Specifically, it attends to the discipline’s limited attention to the
LGBTQI experiences and destabilises taken-for-granted, identity-based categories, theories,
and methodological approaches (see Ball, Crofts, and Dwyer 2016). As queer theoretical
engagements with questions of gender attest (Butler 1993), queer criminology has the
potential to unsettle tenets of feminist criminology in ways that may prompt alternative
approaches to studying relationships between gender, sexuality, and interlocking systems of
Distinct from other feminist camps, feminist criminology offers a subfield of
scholarship that showcases the tensions of empiricism, standpoint theory, deconstruction, and
intersectional approaches. Such tensions have limitations, but they also enable productive
shifts. Although once criticised for not engaging widely with feminist theorising in other
fields, feminist criminology is well positioned to deliver important insights as feminist
intellectual thought—as well as many other disciplines—begins to pose new questions about
materialism and about lived experience beyond the analytic scope of deconstruction. Despite
expressed concerns about divisions within criminology (Bosworth and Boyle 2011), feminist
criminology illustrates how such fissures can support robust critical enquiry that is attentive
to inequality and the grounded realities of crime, violence, and victimisation.
Adler, Christine. 1995. “Feminist Criminology in Australia.” In International Feminist
Perspectives in Criminology: Engendering a Discipline, edited by Nicole H. Rafter
and Frances Heidensohn, 17–38. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Anthony, Thalia. 2013. Indigenous People, Crime and Punishment. London: Routledge.
Armstrong, Lynzi. 2016. “From Law Enforcement to Protection? Interactions between Sex
Workers and Police in a Decriminalized Street-Based Sex Industry.” British Journal
of Criminology. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azw019
Ball, Matthew, Thomas Crofts and Angela Dwyer, eds. 2016. Queering Criminology.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Behrendt, Larissa. 1993. “Aboriginal Women and the White Lies of the Feminist Movement:
Implications for Aboriginal Women in Rights Discourse.” Australian Feminist Law
Journal 1:27–44.
Behrendt, Larissa, and Thalia Anthony. 2016. “Where are Indigenous Women in the
Sentencing of Indigenous Offenders?” Accessed 1 June 2016.
Bosworth, Mary, and Carolyn Hoyle, eds. 2011. What Is Criminology? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Braithwaite, John, and David Biles. 1980. “Women as Victims of Crime.” The Australian
Quarterly 52: 329–339.
Britton, Dana. 2000. “Feminism in Criminology: Engendering the Outlaw.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 57:57–76.
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'. New York:
Cain, Maureen. 1990. “Towards Transgression: New Directions in Feminist Criminology.”
International Journal of the Sociology of Law 18:1–18.
Carlen, Pat. 1992. “Criminal Women and Criminal Justice: The Limits to, and Potential of,
Feminist and Left Realist Perspectives.” In Issues in Realist Criminology, edited by
Roger Matthews and Jock Young, 51–69. London: SAGE.
Carmody, Moira, and Kerry Carrington. 2000. “Preventing Sexual Violence?” Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology 33:341–361.
Carrington, Kerry. 2008. “Critical Reflections on Feminist Criminologies.” In The Critical
Criminology Companion, edited by Thalia Anthony and Chris Cunneen, 82–93.
Sydney: Federation Press.
Carrington, Kerry, and Russell Hogg. 2012. “History of Critical Criminology in Australia.”
In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology, edited by Walter S. DeKeseredy
and Molly Dragiewicz, 46–60. London: Routledge.
Carrington, Kerry, Russell Hogg and Máximo Sozzo. 2016. “Southern Criminology.” British
Journal of Criminology 56:1–20.
Carrington, Kerry, and John Scott. 2008. “Masculinity, Rurality and Violence.” British
Journal of Criminology 48:641–666.
Cook, Sandra, and Judith Bessant, eds. 1997. Women's Encounters with Violence: Australian
Cunneen, Chris, and Julie Stubbs. 1997. Gender, ‘Race’ and International Relations:
Violence against Filipino Women in Australia. Sydney: Institute of Criminology.
Cunneen, Chris, and Rob White. 1995. “Masculinity and Juvenile Justice.” Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology 29:69–73.
Daly, Kathleen. 1989. “Criminal Justice Ideologies and Practices in Different Voices: Some
Feminist Questions About Justice.” International Journal of the Sociology of Law
Daly, Kathleen. 2010. “Feminist Perspectives in Criminology: A Review with Gen Y in
Mind.” In The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory, edited by Eugene
McLaughlin and Tim Newburn, 225–246. London: SAGE.
Daly, Kathleen, and Meda Chesney-Lind. 1988. “Feminism and Criminology.” Justice
Quarterly 5:497–538.
Daly, Kathleen, and Julie Stubbs. 2006. “Feminist Engagement with Restorative Justice.
Theoretical Criminology 10:9–28.
Diaz, Vincente, and J. Kehaulani Kauanui. 2001. “Native Pacific Cultural Studies on the
Edge.” The Contemporary Pacific 13:315–341.
Flavin, Jeanne. 2001. “Feminism for the Mainstream Criminologist: An Invitation.” Journal
of Criminal Justice 29:271–285.
Gelsthorpe, Loraine. 2002. “Feminism and Criminology.” In The Oxford Handbook of
Criminology (3rd edition), edited by Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan and Robert Reiner,
112–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ham, Julie. 2016. Sex Work, Immigration and Social Difference. London: Routledge.
Hancock, Linda. 1980. “The Myth that Females Are Treated More Leniently than Males in
the Juvenile Justice System.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 16:4–
Haney, Lynne A. 2000. “Feminist State Theory: Applications to Jurisprudence, Criminology,
and the Welfare State.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:641–666.
Hartsock, Nancy. 1997. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically
Feminist Historical Materialism.” In The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory,
edited by Linda Nicholson, 216–240. New York: Routledge.
Heidensohn, Frances. 1968. “The Deviance of Women: A Critique and an Enquiry.” British
Journal of Sociology 19:160–175.
Henne, Kathryn, and Rita Shah. 2015. “Unveiling White Logic in Criminological Research:
An Intertextual Analysis.” Contemporary Justice Review 18:105–120.
Henne, Kathryn, and Emily Troshynski. 2013. “Mapping the Margins of Intersectionality:
Criminological Possibilities in a Transnational World.” Theoretical Criminology
Henry, Nicola, and Anastasia Powell. 2015. “Beyond the Sext: Technology-Facilitated
Sexual Violence and Harassment against Adult Women.” Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Criminology 48:104–118.
Howe, Adrian. 1994. Punish and Critique: Towards a Feminist Analysis of Penality. New
York: Routledge.
Irwin, Kathie. 1992. “Towards Theories of Māori Feminism.” In Feminist Voices: Women’s
Studies Texts for Aotearoa/New Zealand, edited by Rosemary Du Plessis, Phillida
Bunkle, Kathie Irwin, Alison Laurie and Sue Middleton, 1–21. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jordan, Jan. 2013. “From Victim to Survivor – and from Survivor to Victim:
Reconceptualising the Survivor Journey.” Sexual Abuse in Australia and New
Zealand 5:48–57.
Jordan, Jan. 2001. “Worlds Apart? Women, Rape and the Reporting Process.” British Journal
of Criminology 41:679–706.
Larner, Wendy, and Paul Spoonley. 1995. “Aotearoa/New Zealand.” In Unsettling Settler
Societies: Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class, edited by Daiva
Stasiulis and Nira Yuval-Davis, 39–65. London: SAGE.
Mayeda, David Tokiharu, and Raagini Vijaykumar. 2015. “Intersections of Culture,
Migration and Intimate Partner Violence as Told by Migrant Youth.” International
Journal of Criminology and Sociology 4:208–219.
Milivojevic Sanja, and Alice McGovern. 2014. “The Death of Jill Meagher: Crime and
Punishment on Social Media.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social
Democracy 3:22–39
Mukherjee, Satyanshu K., and Jocelynne A. Scutt. 1981. Women and Crime. North Ryde:
Allen and Unwin.
Naffine, Ngaire. 1987. Female Crime: The Construction of Women in Criminology. North
Ryde: Allen and Unwin.
Naffine, Ngaire. 1996. Feminism and Criminology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pickering, Sharon. 2010. Women, Borders and Violence: Current Issues in Asylum, Forced
Migration, and Trafficking. New York: Springer.
Pickering, Sharon, and Brandy Cochrane. 2013. “Irregular Border-Crossing Deaths and
Gender: Where, How and Why Women Die Crossing Borders.” Theoretical
Criminology 17:27–48.
Pickering, Sharon, and Julie Ham. 2014. “Hot Pants at the Border: Sorting Sex work from
Trafficking.” British Journal of Criminology 54:2–19.
Salter, Michael. 2013. “Justice and Revenge in Online Counter-Politics: Emerging Responses
to Sexual Violence in the Age of Social Media.” Crime, Media, Culture 9:225–242.
Salter, Michael. 2015. “‘Real Men Don’t Hit Women’: Constructing Masculinity in the
Prevention of Violence against Women.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology doi: 10.1177/0004865815587031
Segrave, Marie, Sanja Milivojevic and Sharon Pickering. 2009. Sex Trafficking: International
Context and Response. London: Routledge.
Simmonds, Naomi. 2011. “Mana Wahine: Decolonising Politics.” Women’s Studies Journal
Smart, Carol. 1976. Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Stubbs, Julie. 2011. “Indigenous Women in Australian Criminal Justice: Over-Represented
but Rarely Acknowledged.” Australian Indigenous Law Review15:47–63
Stubbs, Julie, and Julia Tolmie. 2008. “Battered Women Charged with Homicide: Advancing
the Interests of Indigenous Women.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology 41:138–161.
Ram, Kalpana. 1993. “‘Too Traditional Once Again’: Some Post-Structuralists on the
Aspirations of the Immigrant/Third World Female Subject.” Australian Feminist
Studies 17:5–28.
Teaiwa, Teresia K., and Claire N. Slatter. 2013. “Samting Nating: Pacific Waves at the
Margins of Feminist Security Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 14:447–
Te Awekotuku, Ngahuia. 1991. Mana Wahine Māori: Selected Writings on Māori Women’s
Art, Culture and Politics. Auckland: New Woman Press.
Threadgold, Terry. 1993. “Critical Theory, Feminisms, the Judiciary and Rape.” Australian
Feminist Law Journal 1:7–25.
Watson, Irene. 2015. Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law.
London: Routledge.
Weber, Leanne, and Sharon Pickering. 2011. Globalisation and Borders: Death at the Global
Frontier. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wood, Houston. 2003. “Cultural Studies for Oceania.” The Contemporary Pacific 15:340–
Wundersitz, Joy, Ngaire Naffine and Fay Gale. 1988. “Chivalry, Justice or Paternalism? The
Female Offender in the Juvenile Justice System.” Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Sociology 24:359–376.
Young, Alison. 1992. “A Review of Feminist Perspectives in Criminology.” Journal of Law
and Society 19:289–292.
Young, Alison. 1996. Imagining Crime: Textual Outlaws and Criminal Conversations.
London: SAGE.
1 While Carol Smart’s book, Women, Crime and Criminology (1976), is a classic foundational text in
the field, there is published work questioning the lack of women in criminological analysis that
predates the 1970s (see Heidensohn 1968).
2 I use New Zealand here for consistency, although Aotearoa is widely used and recognised as the
Māori name for the country.
3 Naffine (1996) provides an overview of these studies in Chapter One, later explaining how they fail
to engage with theories that could reinvigorate the field.
4 The term cisgender refers to people whose gender identity matches their assigned biological sex. As
intersex advocates note, this term is limited, because it assumes the existence of binary sexes and fails
to account for bodies that do not appear male or female.
5 The Internet of Things is a term used to capture the global network that supports the collection and
exchange of data. It is made up of smart devices, buildings, motor vehicles, and other data collecting
and transmitting objects.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Public discourses around migrant sex workers are often more confident about what migrant sex workers signify morally but are less clear about who the ‘migrant’ is. Based on interviews with immigrant, migrant and racialized sex workers in Vancouver, Canada and Melbourne, Australia, Sex Work, Immigration and Social Difference challenges the ‘migrant sex worker’ category by investigating the experiences of women who are often assumed to be ‘migrant sex workers’ in Australia and Canada. Many ‘migrant sex workers’ in Melbourne and Vancouver are in fact, naturalized citizens or permanent residents, whose involvement in the sex industry intersects with diverse ideas and experiences of citizenship in Australia and Canada. This book examines how immigrant, migrant and racialized sex workers in Vancouver and Melbourne wield or negotiate ideas of illegality and legality to obtain desired outcomes in their day-to-day work. Sex work continues to be the subject of fierce debate in the public sphere, at the policy level, and within research discourses. This study interrogates these perceptions of the ‘migrant sex worker’ by presenting the lived realities of women who embody or experience dimensions of this category. This book is interdisciplinary and will appeal to those engaged in criminology, sociology, law, and women’s studies.
This work is the first to assess the legality and impact of colonisation from the viewpoint of Aboriginal law, rather than from that of the dominant Western legal tradition. It begins by outlining the Aboriginal legal system as it is embedded in Aboriginal people's complex relationship with their ancestral lands. This is Raw Law: a natural system of obligations and benefits, flowing from an Aboriginal ontology. This book places Raw Law at the centre of an analysis of colonisation - thereby decentring the usual analytical tendency to privilege the dominant structures and concepts of Western law. From the perspective of Aboriginal law, colonisation was a violation of the code of political and social conduct embodied in Raw Law. Its effects were damaging. It forced Aboriginal peoples to violate their own principles of natural responsibility to self, community, country and future existence. But this book is not simply a work of mourning. Most profoundly, it is a celebration of the resilience of Aboriginal ways, and a call for these to be recognised as central in discussions of colonial and postcolonial legality. Written by an experienced legal practitioner, scholar and political activist, AboriginalPeoples, Colonialism and International Law: Raw Law will be of interest to students and researchers of Indigenous Peoples Rights, International Law and Critical Legal Theory.
Legislative approaches to the sex industry are hotly debated internationally and in recent years interest in decriminalization of sex work has been growing. However, activities relating to commercial sex remain criminalized in many parts of the world. Street-based sex work is most often criminalized and is often more aggressively policed than indoor work. This paper explores changes in the relationship between police and street sex workers in New Zealand since the decriminalization of sex work in 2003, from the perspective of sex workers, police and support agencies. This paper concludes that decriminalization enabled a dramatic shift in the approach to policing sex work and emphasizes the importance of these findings in the context of global debates on prostitution law reform.