People always talk about importance of patriarchy for social replication of capitalism, about how capitalism is always going to buck against any attempts at social progress. But I dunno, neoliberalism has been pretty effective at integrating some forms of feminism and gay rights into its polite society, so I feel at some point a lot of bigotry isn't so much material relations, but just a thing of habit...
So I guess my question is, what exactly are those material conditions and why are they making people reactionary on social issues?
neoliberalism has been pretty effective at integrating some forms of feminism and gay rights into its polite society
Only to the point where existing relations of power aren't disrupted. Neolib feminism is a girlboss CEO, not dismantling systemic misogyny against working people.
Neoliberal feminism and rainbow capitalism are not a harm to capital, in fact, they help it by increasing the labor pool, making labor cost less.
It is disrupting existing relations of power, and that's the key to all of this. "Coastal elite CEO" big businesses are threatening petty bourgeois business owners - e.g. Uber ruining the taxi medallion rent-seeking grift in NYC - who are by and large the main source of reaction.
It's just not disrupting existing relations of power that would be useful to the working class.
Neoliberalism only uses progressive values to widen its pool of Human Resources/capital to use the best humans of any gender/race/etc that it can find to make capitalism as efficient as possible as the rate of profit slows down.
It’s not just that (white/straight/cis/wealthy) people need scapegoats, it’s that they use the scapegoating to keep marginalized groups away from resources that they want for themselves and used to have all to themselves.
If capitalists require a scapegoat they'll create a scapegoat. Fair treatment is a privilege which capitalist psychos grant to people for being their loyal subjects.
The phenomenon here is another face of fascism, the kind that's a normalized part of liberalism. Exactly as you said: scapegoats to distract from the elephant in the room, the decay of capitalism.
The demands on worker's time make it so that they aspire to alleviate these personal pressures. Rather than organize with their comrades for better conditions for all, most men find it easier to subjugate a house-woman to take care of the basic work of social reproduction (cooking, cleaning, washing), and that comes with a whole superstructure.
It's not actually New Yorker, but New York Magazine, whatever that is.
"Cancelled at 17", bemoaning the fate of some kid who got a bit of a side eye for sharing naked photos of his girlfriend at a party.
I haven't read it so don't take me at my word. Most people on my tl are angry about it, some are trying their hand at contrarian takes, getting the former even angrier.
We never left the whole Anti-SJW phase of the internet, if the mainstream view is now demanding someone who did something like that to be forgiven.
Rightoids: "Be as awful as you want, because the real terrible people are those who hold grudges!"
The other gut beat me to it. Despite being a stereotypical "rich people" magazine, the New Yorker has been surprisingly based.
Under patriarchy men are obligated to take care of their wives and must be paid as such. Under neoliberalism they are not.
So while improving freedom and rights the liberal and american project makes us pay for those rights. As with all such thing they find a way to make every improvement a problem.
Neoliberalism and Patriarchy are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are completely entwined.
I recommend reading Silvia Federici and bell hooks on patriarchy.
