Title says it all basically! I have an abstract understanding that heightening class conflict can be managed by creating scapegoats and enemies, but nothing exactly gels with e.g. Roe being overturned.
EDIT:
“Imperialism strives for reaction everywhere” Lenin
On some level people are aware of their exploitation under capitalism which increases as the rate of exploitation increases. This awareness can be revolutionary, it can push people into struggle against their oppressors. However, this awareness can be hijacked by reactionary ideology and fascism which redirects struggle towards racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities.
Some analysis from Anuradha Ghandy in 'Fascism, Fundamentalism, and Patriarchy' (2001):
Imperialism faced with its worst ever crisis since the inter-war years is encouraging and promoting fundamentalist forces and fascist organisations and propaganda. And one of the central points of fundamentalist propaganda is a conservative ideology of gender – they proclaim the specific agenda of restoring the centrality of the family and home in the life of women and patriarchal control over her sexuality. Hence ideologues of the New Right even in the US are claiming that there is a moral crisis in American society and this is because of the fact that women are working outside the home. Though they have mobilised actively around opposition to abortion rights for women, they begin by arguing that welfare state expenditures have raised taxes and added to inflation, pulling the married woman into the labour force and thereby destroying the fabric of the patriarchal family and hence the moral order of society.
My main issue is justifying the claim in the paragraph after the Lenin quote.
Because of what you said: reactionary thought arises from the same recognition of the contradictions that revolutionary thought comes from but accepts the ruling class’ framing that your opposition in the struggle is trans people or women or men or “antifa” or the proud boys or white ppl or black ppl or whatever.
Your example of roe in particular is because roe was a (drumroll please) stupid decision that’s incompatible with either reactionary or revolutionary thought and only existed to tread water until something better came along. Half a century went by and that didn’t happen so it went away.
Nothing changed to make families easier to raise in the face of the rise of the two income household so roe had to go.
If you’re interested in a different, very liberal, take: the reactionary idea is that there aren’t enough white babies (or black babies, if you live in Louisiana) being born and the solution is to force women to bear children by taking away their ability not to. That neatly fits into reaction taking a real problem and only looking at who’s yelling about it and picking a side.