Poverty and inequality exist in every developed culture and are often only resolved so that society can continue to grow. Poverty and inequality in the United States exist for many reasons; reasons that derive a lot from the potential objective. Interpretive theories in particular ask us to question our reality and its constructs. Interpretive theories require us to look at the world as a social realm, which we have created and which we are constantly changing. Interpretive theories study the relationship between power and the construction of social roles, as well as the invisible set of patterns and habits that constitute domination (Delgado & Stefanic, 2001). Susan Kemp argues that the worldview is dominated by the experiences of white Western males, often the bourgeoisie, (2001). Within the social realm, the way we look at our world and those in it varies dramatically. Two specific interpretive theories view poverty and inequality in different ways, but both based on social construction. In these theories, things only have meanings based on what we designate, without definitions they would not exist. Both race and gender are social constructs that in this modern world often function interchangeably across the social realm. Society and the social sphere are subject to continuous negotiations and changes. Although often forgotten race and gender are social constructs and not biological aspects of human beings. Different racial groups experience reality in separate and unique ways. These differences occur at all levels: micro, mezzo, and macro (Swignoski & Raheim, 2011). Critical race theory and feminist theory look at the social sphere through specific lenses and offer explanations for many social issues, including poverty and inequality. Criticism... center of paper... Poverty is statistically a problem for black women. They are often poorer and less educated than their white counterparts. Which begs the questions: Why? And how to solve it? When it comes to poverty and inequality, there are many possible answers as to how we got here; there are a lot of questions about what is the best way to proceed from here. I believe that neither feminism nor CRT better describe our problems of poverty and inequality, in fact they work better together. The problems of poverty and inequality have long and complicated histories that can only be described in complicated ways. I can just hope that its final solution is not that complicated, although if it were a conflict or a functionalist theory, then there will always be this conflict. With the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements, the future of poverty and inequality may be changing before our eyes.