Abstract
As jurisdictions across the country grapple with the urgent need to redress the impact of mass incarceration, there has been renewed interest in reforms that reduce the harms punishment inflicts on women. These "gender-responsive" reforms aim to adapt traditional punishment practices that, proponents claim, were designed "for men." The push to change how we punish based on gender, while perhaps well intentioned, is misguided. As abolition feminist principles reveal, these gender-responsive practices not only reify traditional gender norms, but also strengthen the operation of the carceral state. This Article catalogs the ways in that the gender-responsive approach currently influences various decisions about criminal punishment, including about the length, location, and type of punishment one receives. Then, it provides an abolition feminist critique of how we "punish gender" and concludes that these efforts to treat some people better than others ultimately lead to a system that is worse for all.
