It used to be my contention that hipsters don't actually exist, but that they used to. Well, some trace of them probably exist in dark corners of Brooklyn, LA and Chicago, but let's face it; everyone else who usually get called hipsters are just people with square, thick-framed glasses. They might be familiar with things you're not. Grow up and ask them about it. If they're condescending, tell them to piss off or just shrug and exit the unpleasant exchange. Don't create an epidemic out of them. They're harmless.
This insult has become as easy as it is meaningless. Anyone who leans toward an uncompromising authoritarianism certainly comes close, but right wingers have been easy targets. The more right wing you are, the more likely someone is going to shout 'fascist' at you to cut you off. Fascists certainly had strong authoritarian and racist objectives, but they were also socialists. If anything, they represent an unprecedented historical aberration which doesn't easily fit into either the left or the right. While a fascist approximation is certainly warranted in some cases, falling back on this insult is a sign that you don't actually have a coherent criticism.
This is similar to being called a hipster, in that the activity designating its identification is subservient to the identification itself (this is how base-level bigotry works). Don't show any disinclination to favor something in the favor of someone who does, or you will earn a bad name. It's best not to even respond to anyone who accuses you of this. It just reveals that they're willing to self-police their thoughts and emotions without a moment's hesitation. You don't even need to make a case for yourself. You simply have taste.
Used for society as a whole, this is campus culture and metanarrative run amok. To unmask the role of family in order to open the borders of experience is one thing, but to draw a picture of a master-and-slave narrative which includes, not a culture, but the entire population of all humans for all time is ... shall we say, incomplete.
Society has both patriarchal and matriarchal elements to it, and both are necessary to some degree for balance. It's true that we certainly don't need all of one or all of the other, but we should rather be focusing on corruption where we can locate it, rather than drawing up abstract conspiracies which fall back on concrete variables like biology only when convenient.