Thank you for the in depth reply. Unfortunately, I think I must be misunderstanding you, or perhaps we may be talking about slightly different things.

I'm going to start at the beginning so I can clarify my thinking. I was up late last night watching the fights (speaking of performing gender) so it's as much for my benefit as it is to ensure I'm being clear.

So OXIO began by suggesting that there was a problem with treating class as only a cultural force. To use an example, if I, as a worker, go to work every day and my boss doesn't disparage my class (or resulting preferences/values/etc), that doesn't change the fact that I'm being exploited. The culture of my exploitation may be more comfortable, but the oppressive relationship--that of worker and capitalist--remains.

Cyclone expanded this to include race and sex. If I, as a white person, stop using racial slurs and proudly proclaim my belief that all races are equal, while still refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of black peoples' experience of police violence or the white supremacy of most media and the implicit biases it gives me, I'm doing the same thing. The culture of my racism becomes less confrontational, but the racism--the material benefits I enjoy as a member of the white race that are manifest through the relationship between whites and non-whites--remains.

For sex, and here I was thinking specifically about misogyny so perhaps that's where the confusion is coming from, the same is true. If I, as a man, think of my heterosexual relationship as one between equals, if I don't use sexist slurs or make disparaging remarks (except 'as a joke'), and adhere to a culture of non-sexism, while still retaining the traditional division of labour between me and my partner, I'm again preserving the oppressive relationship--the actions which provide me a material benefit--while only changing how I think of that relationship (and myself and partner with respect to it). I've done this personally in past relationships and observe it frequently in the relationships of others. When I compare the relationship of my grandparents to the relationship of my sister, the ways in which they think of themselves and their relationships are much different but the division of labour remains largely the same. Sure, my sister works while my grandmother didn't, but when it comes to the emotional and domestic work required to maintain the relationship she's still the one left doing the heavy lifting.

So perhaps you can see where my confusion comes from; there is a clear disconnect here between the actions which constitute oppressive relationships and the ways in which we think of those actions. There's no guarantee that we understand our own behavior simply because we perform it. If that were true--if anyone who performed wage labour necessarily understood the extraction of surplus value inherent to the worker/owner relationship--then our task as anti-capitalists would be much, much easier! We wouldn't need to study oppression or explain it to people, since we'd all understand it from just our participation, our performance of it.

My point seems so obvious that I feel like I must be misunderstanding your contention with it, I'm sorry about that. If I'm way off base here, perhaps there's an introductory article or essay that could help me to get a better grasp of these things?