The discussion first notes that criminologies of the traditional schools have been interventionist in aim if not always in practice. The radical criminologists of the 1970's criticized such criminology for being oppressive, conservative and partisan (that is, on the side of the state and the interests of the powerful). The traditional schools were labeled as "positivist." The issue faced by feminism is whether critical criminologies or the more recent left realist criminologies have transcended the problem of positivism or whether they have projected it on to their political opponents while assuming they themselves are untainted. The author criticizes the left realists, represented in the thinking of Jock Young, for anchoring themselves within a criminology that remains yoked to a flawed and discredited positivist paradigm. She advises that Young, like the founding forefathers, still believes that he can objectively uncover both the causes of and solutions to "crime." As a consequence, realist criminology is in a dilemma; it cannot give up on the notion of "crime" because it would mean looking beyond criminology, but in so doing it condemns itself to working within a "weak thought" discipline. The author uses Sandra Harding's writings (1986, 1987) as a useful conceptual framework for mapping the development of feminist thought in the social sciences. She refers to feminist empiricism, standpoint feminism, and postmodern feminism. Each of these concepts is explained, followed by an assessment of what criminology has to offer feminism, given feminism's broadly based scholarship and political practice. 37 references