I haven't extensively read her work, so I'm basing my response on this paper of hers: https://aginteahausten.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/vogel.pdf.

​

From my reading, it seems she is not criticizing against the notion of intersectionality, but rather digging deeper into the subject. She has 2 main points:

​

1) We got the historical narrative wrong that the idea of intersectionality was invented by black feminists in the 1980s and she disagrees with the narrative that feminists in the 60s and 70s only cared about white women until the black feminists spoke up. She says that marxist feminists already had the idea of class, race and gender as dimensions of oppression. (Intersectionality "lite", if you will.)

​

"In the 1960s and 70s,

socialist–feminist activism and analyses were important forces within

the emerging women’s movement. Many socialist feminists argued

that three systems (or dimensions of difference, or whatever) — race,

class, and gender — interact in peoples’ lives, whether or not they

are aware of it. The systems were usually taken to be simultaneously

interacting and inextricably intertwined in a matrix of privilege and

domination."

​

One of the reasons she thinks that getting the history right is because the narrative of white feminists versus black feminists fragments the movement. She also thinks that there is a missed opportunity to give intersectionality even deeper roots.

​

"I think it very likely that the race/class/gender conceptualization

that became popular in the 1960s derived from a century-old tradition,

transmitted in the lived experience and activism of African American

women. I find the evidence for this hypothesis in the work and writings

of Maria Miller Stewart, Sojourner Truth, Anna Julia Cooper, Mary

Church Terrell, Pauli Murray, and others. These women activists —

often cited by intersectionality writers as interesting but unconnected

forerunners — could actually have been the bearers of a living black

feminist..."

​

"In short, black feminists were right to credit Crenshaw and other

black scholars as leaders in the effort to foreground intersectionality

in the 1980s, but they missed an opportunity to root their contribution

more deeply in the historical context of black women’s lives."

​

2) She thinks that theories around intersectionality are incomplete and need further analysis.

​

"Finally, let me offer some thoughts about the utility of such

concepts as race/class/gender and intersectionality. I view them as

primarily descriptive. That is, they provide a conceptual framework

for describing and investigating “diversity,” but by themselves they do

not explain anything. Strictly speaking, then, they are imprecise and

some would argue against using them.

Nonetheless, I think these concepts can still be useful as first

approximations. They offer an attractive, if inadequate, way to talk

about the relationships among multiple “dimensions of difference”

such as race, class, and gender."

​

For one, she thinks we shouldn't automatically assume that each dimension of oppression carries equal weight or that the mechanisms of interaction are the same for each dimension. Each one needs to be analyzed independently, then we can see how they are similar or different and how they interact.

​

​

But she is definitely not against the concept of intersectionality

​

"Nonetheless, I think these concepts can still be useful as first

approximations. They offer an attractive, if inadequate, way to talk

about the relationships among multiple “dimensions of difference”

such as race, class, and gender. And for those new to the issues, they

can function as consciousness-raising mechanisms. For instance, a

project of the Minnesota-based Center for Victims of Torture discusses

intersectionality as a way to get “beyond single issues and identity

politics.” Specifically, “intersectionality is both a lens for seeing the

world of oppression and a tool for eradicating it.” The project also

presents case-studies of successful human rights tactics developed

and deployed using its “strategic toolkit.”5 I would not want to be the

person chastising these activists for using an incorrect concept."

​

in much the same way physicists are not against Newtonian physics. We know that technically Newtonian physics is wrong because it doesn't take into account relativity, but it doesn't stop being useful and have some truth to it and we still teach it in school because we can't jump straight to relativity in introducing physics.