5 ms·
I would say that's about right as someone who basically espouses this way of looking at class dynamics (though I'm not sure it's really a solely Marxist view, a
by jamesaguilar 13y ago
I would say that's about right as someone who basically espouses this way of looking at class dynamics (though I'm not sure it's really a solely Marxist view, as I am still a fan of capitalism, etc.).
One nuance that might be missing from your comment is that folks who believe this still agree that individual men can be oppressed. And some groups of men can be oppressed too -- black males come to mind. But generally, when talking about oppression, they/we are talking about systemic oppression, and would generally agree that men as a whole are not systemically oppressed, although they theoretically could be if women ever became the dominant gender.
- newnewnew 13y agoMarxist analysis is even more often used in discussion of race than of sex. You will often see the claim that there is no such thing as racism against white people, because racism equals power + privilege and white people are privileged. A person shouting ethnic slurs as they beat up a white person is not acting in a "racist" manner, since white people are the privileged group.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoActually, I have seen and agree with that too. According to my politics, you can be "racially discriminatory" against white people, and you can perform a "racially motivated" crime against a white person, but you cannot be racist-as-in-racism against white people. Incidentally, this is why the slur "cracker" carries essentially no sting. (BTW, I am not trying to own the definition of "racism." I understand that other people prefer to use the word to label a different concept than those who share my politics. I'm just trying to explain what I think people mean when they say, "You can't be racist against white people." They mean that there is no systemic oppression of white people.)