Gimenez argues against that class should be considered equal to gender and race. Class struggles become a part of the recurrent change and also in race, gender, and class studies. She agrees with Collins that ethnomethodology disregards power relations. (pg. 11) Power relations relates to class through coercion (4/28). Power relations are what causes all the processes of social interaction and is also the main reason why social facts are coercing people. The ubiquity of power should not obscure the fact that some power relations are more substantial than …show more content…
Class is not how you see yourself (4/28). The race, gender, and class perspective continues to diminish class to other forms of oppression, and maintains tentatively extensive, so that intersectionality, and interconnections are open to any and all hypothetical elucidations, the essence of those metaphors of division and connection will persist to be abstruse and be open to inconsistent interpretations (pg. 12). Overall, if you don’t understand class, then you are missing the picture (4/28). Marxism is not the only macro level theory that the race, gender, and class perspective could associate with in order to discover the rudimentary formations of domination, but is the utmost appropriate way for race, gender, and class to liberate political intentions. (pg. 12) Gimenez identifies that the Marxist theory is essential to conjecture a better understanding of class, gender and …show more content…
11). Also that class should be a priority (4/28). Then she states that all oppression should not be ranked (pg. 5). All oppression is also equally valid (4/28). Oppression is that society is being unjust to people. There are various types of oppression, such as colonialism, nativism, sexism, classism, racism, and so on. In other words class, gender, and race are all types of oppression. To conclude this argument class can be considered equal to race and gender. Especially, if all oppressions should be treated equally and not be