So, is a husband a bourgeoisie?

Different material relations

No they're not

So, why Engels said that?

He didn't

I quoted him.

In what message exactly?

You can see that above. Just scroll up

You have two quotes from Marx, out of context, and that's all

<OUT OF CONTEXT> Ok

`In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out.`

he quoted a piece of this

which engels wrote to relativize the situation of supremacy of bourgeois over proletariat

that forms the basic economic unit

in an attempt to draw a conclusion of liberation would include the female sex equally entering the public industry

and hes trying to claim some kind of contradiction

between the relative comparison of the hegelian master-slave dialectic

and actual social relations of production wherein class spawns from

Wow, I love how you have to do so much gymnastics to cover for a direct quote

Must be tough

if you call context gymnastics

you dont know how to read

Yes, context makes the statement read different.

Yeah the idea he means they're the *literal* bourgeoisie is so stupid you must be purposefully doing it to have some weird take on "cultural Marxism" or something to that effect

_"and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy"_

iS THAT LITERAL?

Literally read what I said

I'm guessing this is the "Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State"

Yeah

How do we know what is literal?

Oh yeah men do have supremacy over women

That's doesn't make every husband the bourgeoisie

So, that is literal, but the next sentence isn't?

Wow

Because he literally says in a couple sentences later that the point of the comparison is that the liberation of the proletariat would inversely.mean in comparison the female sex introduced to public industry

He makes a comparison, are you really that dense not to notice?

Context or no, it's clearly a comparison

It's showing how it is also a class dynamic in some sense

Is saying men have supremacy also a comparison?

Maybe, that is a metaphor as well

Are you more concerned with winning an argument than learning?