From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


I have no idea why this was a redirect to radical feminism, but I've fixed that now. This is by no means the best entry that could be written on intersectionality, but I have a decent grasp of it (but my most in-depth exposure to it is in the context of anti-VAW work) and I figured a stub would be adequate for now. The Literate Engineer 06:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What an ugly word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


I've made a lot of adjustments to this page. I think the original ideas were good, but I did some clarifying to the topic as a whole, and took the old article as a base from which to expand. I think that that the Intersectionality and Intersectionality Theory pages should not be merged. While they deal with the same general theory, the Intersectionality Theory page is discussing simply how it applies to Feminism and more specifically Black Feminism, rather than the Intersectionality movement as a whole. While they are related, I would leave them as two separate pages, and simply rename the second page. --Kellymeredith 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Intersectionality theory[edit]

I vote for merging. The two articles are redundant. Sjclarknh 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also vote for merging; it's the same topic. --Irn (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, definitely merge. It's disorganized. I had to read both entries to figure out what was going on and make sure i wasn't missing something from the other entry--precisely the kind of thing wikipedia is supposed to take care of with its single definitive entries. --Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Since Crenshaw was born in 1959, it's very unlikely that she started the intesectionality theory in the seventies. Her book cited in the article is from 1991. --Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs a critique section[edit]

As a white male who surfs through life on my privilege oppressing all I meet unconsciously, I demand, as anyone who lives life atop the pyramid would, that this article needs a critique section.

I do appreciate the article, as it seems to say that Intersectionality is a way to put a partial ordering on the oppression wars (I am more oppressed than you!).

Who is more oppressed, a fat white male retard in a wheelchair or say, a female african american secretary of state?

With Intersectionality, I now understand why it's the latter and not the former.

So thanks article editors! --Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sarcasm wasn't necessary, but I do think a criticisms section would be helpful, if the critiques exist and can be found. (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Intersectionality isn't about competing to see whose oppression is the worst; it's about examining the way the different kinds of oppression interact. The article has a heavy focus on the intersection between race and gender, I agree, but that's because the concept of intersectionality developed within black feminism, not because black women claim to be most oppressed. Black feminists have been examining intersectionality the longest, so there are more reliable sources about the intersect of race and gender than about the intersect of dis/ability and weight. Nobody's implying that a white male can't be oppressed, or that your particular oppression isn't "good enough". -- (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources come from the preponderance of factual data and the logical conclusions that result; not from the prepoderance of voices repeating the same concepts. Be careful about assuming that just because there are a dozen more books supporting the subject in so many years automatically means that the theory is in fact predictive (which is required for any theory to be a theory). It's far too easy for an author to take others' works and simply colate and restate them and call the result their own without doing any actual relevent research. Yes. I too think there should be a critique of this. Without a qritique, this concept is just an argument, not a theory as is stated. With a valid refutable critique, the strength of the subject will become clearer and it will either be firmly a theory, or forever hyperbole. Personally, as a systems analyst, I understand how interconencted systems can interact un sometimes unexpected ways. But in this case, what has to be shown to me is how these social interactions exceed in magnitude the individuals own life choices and in particular the choices they make in not resisting the choices of their immediate peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly feels as if the article was written originally as an essay presenting the essential features of intersectionality, as suggested below. As it stands, the article isn't up to wikipedia's normal standards- a critique section could address some of the commonly cited issues with intersectionality as a theoretical framework. Namely: the lack of a well-defined corresponding methodology, the use of black women as the prototypical intersectional objects, the ambiguity present in the definition of intersectionality (alluded to elsewhere on this talk page) and issues regarding the desirability and practicality of incorporating intersectionality into a coherent political agenda. Although intersectionality is certainly in fashion, it is far from being as unquestioningly accepted as the article implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

textbook definition?[edit]

If intersectionality examines many forms of group membership aside from gender, why would a "textbook definition" be ""the view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity"? Would it be more accurate to say that this is a prototypical example of the topics addressed by intersectionality? Inhumandecency (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Though the history of intersectionality is rooted in gender issues, I have located a more neutral definition that I incorporated into the article, in addition to and following the existing (read originally written) definition. This definition comes from a sociology text book, as cited in the entry. Though heavily Canadian, the text provides a more neutral approach to defining intersectionality as a theory. Elynif (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Elynif

That's less of a neutral definition, not more. The history of intersectionality isn't rooted in gender issues, it is a gender and race issue. Crenshaw made this abundantly clear in 1989, and since. Stripping away a necessary condition, such as the quintessential intersectional subject, the black woman, you're not providing a more neutral definition, you're just providing a different definition. Intersectionality is teleological, not deontological. One of the issues with the article is, and I mean absolutely no offense, that most (if not all of the editors) have little to no education on the subject. There is no such thing as deontological intersectionality, by definition. Teleology is a necessary condition of interseciontality, which of course is diametrically opposed any deontological based definition as you've provided. Intersectionality can't be, by definition, a pure procedural system because it has a very specific goal. In fact, Crenshaw, and every other writer I've ever met, studied and worked with, from Williams to Collins to Zack to McCall to Matsuda and on, all hammer away at this point.

Also, the opening sentence in the historical background section is just patently false. Even worse, whoever footnoted that first sentence either had no idea what they read, or just lied. Read the source, Thompson, absolutely and without question, does NOT say what is claimed in the article. Heck, the 1960's addition was a complete fabrication, and she certainly does NOT even address intersectionality, at all. She clearly talks about multiracial feminism in the 1970's. Again, another example of how poorly Wikipedia really does handle some subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation style and NPOV[edit]

Hello, please fix the inline citations in this article. It appears to be a copy-paste from a student's essay on the topic. Essays often violate WP:OR and WP:SYN. Please review these policies as well as WP:Citing sources. Wikipedia does not have a preferred citation style, but short citations appear to be the normal style. I will mark this page and return to it in the future to address any issues that are not resolved. Thanks, Rgambord (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section to this article on the applications of intersectionality. The content is based on several research articles and recent events and materials. Please kindly let me know if you have suggestions or can point to additional material to support this contribution. CNoemiM (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

CNeomiM - the applications section looks very well-written and sourced to me, though I have only scanned it. The only issue is that the citations are done like a typical academic paper and not according to Wikipedia's style. So all the "(Viruell-Fuentes, Miranda & Abdulrahim 2012)" type citations, for instance, need to be written in using a template citation (Templates > cite book or cite journal in Edit Source, or Insert > Reference in the visual editor). See WP:Citing Sources or the [[1]] for more info. And thanks for your contribution! Phette23 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion[edit]

Hello all. An article I have created, SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, is up for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen if interested. Any input is greatly appreciated.ErykahHuggins (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi I cannot see how this theory can really be applied universally around the world. I am new to wikipedia editor. but i know that earlier cultures Paleolithic/Neolithic were relatively more less gender equal as we appear to see them today, and that these subjects tend to base their evidence in the traditional "battleground" of North American culture, I would like to see more citations from more diverse cultures and times or have that warnings questioning this as as local phenomena/observation. Sorry this is my first day =) (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actual evidence or sociological/psychological studies that would support these large claims[edit]

I wanted to find out more about intersectionality, so I turned to this topic on wikipedia. One thing I do not quite understand is that there are extremely large, society - and even civilization wide assertions being made, but nowhere in this article is it seen as necessary to actually include studies or evidence supporting these huge claims. I mean shouldn't there be a reference to sociological or psychological research either supporting or debunking these claims? Is evidence and actual data about this topic not important? I see a lot of writers cited who have made claims, but by what data they are supported is left out. I am left to think after reading this article that these are unsupported cultural theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. More than this, the article doesn't support the views of those who are against theories of Intersectionality, or critique them (as with 'discourse'-oriented theories more generally) as pseudo-academic nonsense. The Orientalism page, for example, has recently been improved in that regard -- you would be hard pressed to find a well-read academic, after all, that unreservedly believes in and proselytizes for Edward Said! Sadly, this page seems to show the vulgar political bias that reifies certain schema as God-given. American Community College Ahoy! Sad really. (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


I don't think a link to the humanist page goes here, any more than one to communism or socialism would be, because, like those ideologies that may have merely picked up on this concept, intersectionality was not integral to humanism when it was being developed, and so the presence of the link merely indicates that some humanists have also had a "sure, that too" observation. It's like scrambling to get followers by liking anything that has reached public notice. As for communism and socialism, takeover of the whole economy would come first for them, and the sorting out of justice would come later; linkage would be just something done to gain followers while waiting for the time to take over. None are not primarily concerned with the topic of intersectionality and its promise as a project for social change. (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A Marxist-feminist critical theory[edit]

There seems to be a lack of actual Marxist feminists in the section titled "A Marxist-feminist critical theory" There seems to be only those who pick and choose aspects of Marxism that they like and apply it to intersectionality theory. (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The worst of this page's issues right here. (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Include this article in humanism[edit]

only half said in jest.

It's not a very feminist theory, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)