Many people experience workplace-related biases because of how they speak, which stems from listener processes including social categorization (placing speakers into groups), stereotyping (forming simplified beliefs about speakers), and processing (dis)fluency (struggling to understand speakers). However, it is unclear how these processes account for evaluations of speakers with intersecting, voice-cued identities across different job contexts. We recruited 192 listeners to assess the employability of men whose speech marks them as first (L1) or second (L2) language speakers and as gay- or straight-sounding men. The speakers were presented as applicants for jobs considered gay- or straight-typed and involving high or low communication demands. Besides employability, listeners evaluated speakers’ sexual orientation and ease of understanding (comprehensibility as processing fluency). Straight-sounding L1 speakers received the highest employability ratings, followed by straight-sounding L2 speakers and gay-sounding L1 speakers, with gay-sounding L2 speakers ranked lowest. Processing fluency mediated the effect of language status, with L1 speakers rated as more employable partly because they were more comprehensible. Job communication demands (but not job stereotypicality) interacted with speaker effects, where L1 and straight-sounding speakers were perceived as more employable in low-communication jobs. We discuss how speaker identity, job context, and listener experience shape evaluations.

The massive prosecutorial undertaking for the January 6th insurrection prompts us to ask why Americans disapproved of punishment outcomes. We root people’s perceptions of prosecution and punishment in a threat-based understanding of the justice system, in which punishment has been used to maintain group privileges. Americans are generally supportive of punishing justice protests, but January 6th was about maintaining white and male privilege. We see opposition to January 6th punishments as patterned by an intersectional threat: a perceived challenge to racial and gendered privileges. Results suggest direct and interactive roles for racial and gendered threats on disapproval of prosecutorial punishments.1

Survival sex is prevalent in conflict-affected settings, yet humanitarian actors’ understanding of the structural inequalities driving such exchanges remains limited. Stigma and discriminatory attitudes among practitioners continue to shape humanitarian responses, resulting in the exclusion of those engaged in survival sex from assistance and protection. This article examines how prevailing narratives have reduced survival sex to dichotomous categories of sex work or sexual violence, overlooking the systemic dimensions of what is best described as a coping mechanism. After defining survival sex, it analyzes the root causes of the phenomenon through wider scholarship on transactional sex. Based on secondary sources and the author’s operational experience addressing gendered harm in humanitarian settings, the article examines how survival sex impacts individuals, families and communities. The author concludes by providing recommendations for how humanitarian actors can enhance protection for persons engaged in survival sex through broader stigma reduction efforts.

In this paper, I argue that the literature on victims’ duties to resist their own oppression has not paid enough attention to the heterogeneity of victims and how this affects their duties. The main aim of the paper is to introduce considerations and complications—informed by an intersectional analysis, and particularly the concept of privilege—that must be taken into account when determining how to assign duties to resist. I argue that failure to recognize these nuances results in an overcautiousness when it comes to assigning duties of resistance, and that a blanket reluctance to assign such duties is of most detriment to the most marginalized.

This study examines how intersectional identity congruence between leaders and members of associations shapes volunteering behaviors and outcomes. Drawing on the American Society of Association Executives’ Decision to Volunteer survey and using the intersection of gender and race identities, we find that board–member congruence is associated with more time volunteered, whereas executive director–member congruence shows limited association. Strikingly, intersectional congruence with boards is associated with lower volunteer satisfaction. Applying an intersectional framework to leadership–member representation reveals the complex implications of the multiplicity of identities across and within individuals.

Esta conversación surge de una frustración compartida por una antropóloga y un historiador a propósito de la reacción de muchos científicos sociales ante su interés por estudiar las clases medias en América Latina. En ella proponemos explorar cómo el estudio de las clases medias y el uso de esta categoría como constructo histórico proporciona una perspectiva enriquecedora para comprender las múltiples y diversas formas de poder y dominación en la región, desafiando ciertas interpretaciones hegemónicas. Se proponen, además, tres ejes temáticos de discusión: lo político y coyuntural, lo historiográfico-metodológico y lo histórico político. Estos ejes permiten anudar puntos cruciales de conexión entre el estudio histórico de las clases medias y un análisis crítico interdisciplinario e interseccional sobre procesos históricos más amplios.

This article demonstrates how political science, particularly the emerging field of American Political Economy (APE), can more robustly theorize and study the political economy of systemic racism by drawing on insights from critical race theories, including intersectionality and racial capitalism, and post/anti-colonial theory. A paired case study of the foreclosure “noncrisis” of the 1990s and the coerced sterilization of incarcerated women in California during the early 2000s highlights three key contributions of critical race theories: (1) intersectionality reveals nonuniformity, unintended consequences of purportedly progressive policy, and underscores the importance of margins-to-center resistance; (2) feudal-colonial roots illuminate how racialized hierarchies become institutionalized in law and policy, often without explicit racial language; and (3) racial capitalist logics explain how administrative tools, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, reproduce racial hierarchy through markets. This framework offers APE a more historically grounded, power-conscious, and theoretically expansive approach to systemic racism and underscores the urgency of resisting efforts to suppress such scholarship.

Despite improvement over the past few decades, particularly for white, cisgender women, intersectional gender-based inequality remains prominent within anthropological archaeology and beyond. Building on critiques of the leaky pipeline metaphor laid out in the introduction to this themed issue, and drawing on Black, Indigenous, and Posthumanist Feminisms, we advocate for a metaphorical shift focused on care, inclusivity, and diversity—that of a garden. The garden metaphor provides a way to express and explore the complex and intertwined ways disciplinary norms, institutions, and individuals structure and shape experiences in archaeology. After reviewing the garden metaphor and summarizing previous suggestions for improving equity in archaeology, we present recommendations for actionable steps at disciplinary, institutional, supervisory, and individual levels. Drawing on insights from the articles in the issue, as well as existing literature within and beyond archaeology, we argue that a greater emphasis on care, and its integration into the value structure of archaeology, would create a more inclusive discipline.

In this study, we engage in a deep dive into Black Americans views of the Congressional Black Caucus. We argue that given the goals of the organization, Black people should be the CBC’s strongest supporters. We also anticipate that age will be a major cleavage in support for the CBC among Black people. We test our hypotheses using the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS). We find that Black people, and older Black people in particular, are the most supportive of the CBC. Moreover, we find that disparities in support among the youngest and oldest Black respondents are greater than the differences between Black and White people in our analysis. We empirically explore the causes of this intergenerational rift and show that younger Black Americans’ lower levels of support for the organization are in part tied to their lower levels of linked fate and their perception that elected officials do not work to advance their interest in government.

In an era of globalization, increasingly interconnected labor markets have intensified competition for skilled talent, particularly among countries in the Global North such as Canada. While Canada’s immigration policy prioritizes education and professional experience, these same credentials are often devalued upon arrival, as systemic barriers limit access to commensurate employment. This study examines the employment experiences of skilled, racialized immigrants in British Columbia, exploring how institutional narratives of meritocracy conceal exclusion, credential systems reinforce epistemic hierarchies, and settlement services pathologize migrant experiences. Using a qualitative design with four focus group discussions (n = 18), the study integrates critical migration theory, intersectionality, and decolonial social work to analyze the structural marginalization of skilled, racialized immigrants. Findings reveal a central paradox: the very system that celebrates global talent simultaneously erodes its value through credential gatekeeping, discriminatory hiring practices, and labor market practices that privilege local over global expertise. By situating these barriers within broader colonial and epistemic hierarchies, the study argues that integration must be understood not as individual adaptation but as institutional transformation. It contributes to critical debates on skilled migration, equity, and the reproduction of colonial logics within Canada’s labor market.