Let me clarify, I think both those statements ARE TRUE, but I feel like there's some caveats. Like, if you're a 100% Herero masculine man who doesn't have much empathy for others, the patriarchy probably kinda rocks. I hate cooking and cleaning personally and would love if a robot could do it all for me, but I can see why a less moral man would be fine with just having a woman do it for them.
Same with racism, sure it's used to divide the working class, but that divide is facilitated in part by giving the more privileged workers more goodies, and some people REALLY love those goodies.
Now sure we can tell people "things would be better under socialism!" But let's be honest here, things would be better under FALGSC, and FALGSC is farther off than many of us would like to admit. Even if we pulled off global socialism tomorrow there's probably at least a 100 years or so of "transitional period" before we get to a socialism that works that good that we'll have replicators and shit. In that period, I think the more privileged sectors of the working class are probably gonna experience some belt tightening, and they may not be happy with that. Sure, your grandkids (or maybe great grandkids) are gonna be doing great but I don't think Bob the Union Truck-driver is gonna be happy about losing his jetski and his wife getting shoes and not making him steaks in the kitchen anymore.
Mind you, I'm not a Maoist Third Worldist, I think there are workers in the imperial core for whom socialism is appealing, but I think we kind of need to be honest with the fact it's not like everyone who technically qualifies as a proletarian is gonna reap the same benefits here.
I know this is kind of unfocused and scatter brained but it's just a shower thought I've been having.
Idk. Feels like "the game of basketball is great if you're over 6 feet all". Yes, to a degree. But the patriarchy more describes an exclusionary principle than an inclusionary one. If you're the middle daughter of a rich family, you experience a gulf in benefits relative to an eldest son, because of the behaviors and impulses of your clan patriarch. However, if you're the eldest son in a destitute family, there's no inheritance to springboard off of.
Do you really want to be the king of squalor when you could live to serve in paradise?
Racism is, again, an exclusionary process. As a minority - a native or a migrant or a poc or a religious minority - you're cut out of the running for a position in the hierarchy. But there are plenty of folks who simply lose out on their own merits and never see the benefits of a tightly knit social circle they weren't invited into.
I think the benefits of patriarchy and racist divisions are simply more appealing in a socialist society, as the real divide in these communities is access to common public works. Patriarchy absent access to a corporate ladder or family property, racism absent access to public health care or education or housing, is just poverty couched within the language of liberalism.
Under mid-20th century socialism, a woman will bang her head on the glass ceiling of a patriarchal institutions, as her talents are ignored by free-entry public colleges and influential bureaucracies looking to promote exclusively within the male caste. She can only ever aspire to be middle class. Under mid-20th century capitalism, a woman has no colleges or bureaucracies within which to advance herself on merit and must rely exclusively on her marriage-ability and her ability to influence the senior member of her clan. She can attain the peak of wealth and privilege, so long as she enjoys a male sponsor to hold the figurehead role, but the number of roles available is contracted by the inefficient distribution of resources.
The fundamental sell of socialism is not that it is a panacea, but that it creates a rising tide that carries all ships. Conservatives will happily call out aspects of socialism that undermine patriarchal structures (most notably, the ability to live outside the care of a male/white patron). But racism and patriarchy can still exist comfortably in a socialist economy, so long as positions within the hierarchy remain monopolized by a given gender or race.
This is a fundamental flaw with "class reductionism", at least in so far as it exposes the social divisions among genders and races that persist even when their fundamental economic needs are all met. But the broad appeal of socialist policy is that - even as a disenfranchised minority - the proletariat will experience a better quality of life by way of more free time, more pleasant accommodations, and fewer economic uncertainties.
This still leaves a higher tier of egalitarianism to strive for. But it does not undermine the appeal of generally improved living standards enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the population.
Wait, what? The USSR had a lot of women in government and STEM fields. Hoxha promoted women in education and government while aggressively suppressing cultural and religious movements that got in the way of them. One of Mao's most famous quotes is "women hold up half the sky."
It had significantly more women than under the prior and subsequent governments, but they were still outnumbered 2:1 at the peak. And virtually none of them made it into senior administrative posts. Yes, you could work as a scientist or engineer, but you'd never lead a factory or a laboratory or rise particularly high in the military.
And yet how many women have held up the Politburo? They continue to drastically lag their male peers at every step of state and private administration.
Well, I mean, if you're also in shape then that statement is kinda true
If you're tall and in shape and you spend half your life training to do the sport, you'll have the opportunity to engage in cut-throat competition with equally talented peers for a tiny handful of positions available in the pro-league. In the same way, being white or male is a leg up. But only in a very marginal sense.
If I have to choose between being tall in a world where my favorite sport is hyper-professionalized and exploitative or being short in which the same sport is recreational and accommodating to all, I'm going with the second one, because it gives me the best opportunity to do what I enjoy rather than a slim chance at being an elite.