One can be sexist against men. Patriarchal society is institutionally sexist against men despite the benefits it provides. Gender liberationists acknowledge this and understand how feminist movements have also broadly benefited men.
One can be racist against 'white' people. 'White' supremacist society is institutionally harmful to 'whites' despite the benefits it provides. Anti-racists acknowledge this and understand how anti-racist movements have also broadly benefited 'whites'.
One can be classist against the bourgeoisie. Capitalist society is institutionally harmful to the bourgeoisie despite the benefits it provides. Socialists acknowledge this and understand how socialist movements have also broadly benefited the owning class.
Whether these prejudices are necessary or justified is a personal opinion. However, it is absurd and hilarious to pretend, for a common example, "you can't be racists against white people". This slogan signals denial, a post-liberalist rationalization, based on the idealist assumption that "racism is bad because uuhh it just is", and that they don't see themselves as bad, that their racism is therefore not racism. Instead, we must understand why racism is harmful to society, both institutional racism and other forms.
For another example, classism may be rationalized by oversimplifying the class tendency for the bourgeoisie to preserve their superiority. Perhaps a proletarian revolution, under the pressures of counterrevolution, may unfortunately resort to some form of classicide when circumstances don't give us the opportunity for nuance. This is not ideal, we know many heroic traitors of the bourgeois class who have sided with the proletarian movement. But it may be justified or rationalized when circumstances force it. For example, the regicide of the Romanovs was a tactically beneficial action. We've seen historical cases where royalty have rejected their title and privilege, but due to circumstances, the Bolsheviks would have been irresponsible to let the Romanovs live simply for this possibility, while on the other hand, the CPC were responsible to let Puyi live. Perhaps, if there were not an ongoing royalist civil war, the Romanovs could have been given a similar fate…
60 posts and 17 image replies omitted.>>2506293How does it compare to Indian oppression in South Africa and its complications?
Men are oppressed by the patriarchy, and generally their class position, but still have some benefits over women – just like how Indians were oppressed in South America but not as much as Blacks – is it justifies to go "Kill the Boer" on men because they have it slightly better?
That's the actual type of question.
>>2505690There's clearly different types of reactionarism.
Your sexism against men point for instance, if you dont wanna call it sexism, then do you just call discrimination?
And since it's NOT sexism and instead a discrimination, would you call it justified?
Like discrimination against men since of trauma?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text. >>2506314Other than the emptiness of the money and being unable to be friends with anyone other than psychopathic rich people, sure they're happier since they're the only ones to have their needs really met.
Besides, that guys point doesnt really matter, bigger point made by Hegel was that it's a dialect where they both rely on each other and cant just be separated, it's not like a online video game where you can leave mid match.
Marx highlights this in explaining that capital exploits are human nature and pushes us to hoard for that reason, hence why billionaires hoard, they just become sociopaths over time to justify their unfair unfair advantage (like in the monopoly study).
Bourgeois feminism bad. Good feminism indistinguishable from communism. End of story.
unironic misandry should just not be taken seriously at all besides 95% of cis "misandrists" are TERFs that throw shitfits because they saw a woman with broad shoulders use the woman's bathroom