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.
I don't know that it's really changed recently. I think that the benefits of patriarchy and racism are usually obvious to the oppressors, and the downsides are more subtle and may indeed be outweighed by the upsides. For instance, patriarchy excludes half the possible labor pool from "men's work" and leads to higher salaries in those fields. So there's a material incentive just as straightforward as that which pushed Irish immigrants to bar black workers from jobs. The downsides of patriarchy are things like male loneliness, machismo, (for straight men) struggling to understand the women you're attracted to, etc. Less tangible. This goes double for racism, where some of the downsides can be made invisible through segregation. At least men have to talk to women eventually.
Within the broad groups, there are individuals whose incentives are not the same as the overall class. Among the oppressed groups and the oppressors. Quants making $650k a year do not want socialism even though they sell their labor like you and me. The wives and beneficiaries of presidents and CEOs are ultimately fine with patriarchy (I'm reading Right-Wing Women next). Some men see few benefits from patriarchy; others are YouTube hustle culture PUAs having the time of their lives. Some white people live lives especially uplifted by the oppression of black people (prison industrial complex workers, home flippers, etc), others don't get much material benefit out of it. I guess we have to restrict ourselves to talking about the groups in aggregate, and splitting them up when they become too incoherent.
Lately I've been feeling that the way oppressed groups will throw off their chains is not going to be by convincing their oppressors. It would help to have some men and white people who are allied, but it seems like the prime mover has been / will be building consciousness and collective power within the group to force the oppressors to relent. But this is a rather depressing outlook and I still have a lot of reading to do. Dunno.