The point of the original comment that certain common positive aspects of 50s American life, namely single family home ownership, one-income households, and lower CEO/worker pay ratios are less common now. To bring up the point of racism and sexism seems to imply that those amenities were only possible due to racist and sexist structures. Is that what you believe, that the lack of home ownership, massive CEO/worker pay gap and necessity for most households to be 2 income to support a family are a necessary consequence of achieving gender equality and civil rights?
It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant to the analysis. Social factors such as racism/sexism are considered in "socioeconomic" analysis.
> Is that what you believe
No, I don't follow your reasoning. From an analysis perspective, you claimed that society would benefit from ignoring racism/sexism (social factors) in evaluating "amenities" associated with socioeconomic status. I think this provides lower resolution into issues plaguing society, not higher resolution.