/lit/ - Literature

>>18977031
>Are you having trouble following the argument, we are talking about whether Fascism's social stance was traditionalist, not whether it was "anti women", whatever that means.
>Mussolini wanted women to stay at home raising children while men run society war. This is the traditional view of gender roles.
This has about as much substance at saying that drinking water is "traditional". The regime wanted Italian people to be healthy, it wasn't tradition for the sake of tradition. The reality of women in Italy was largely dependent on your social status and who you knew, and Italian society than was largely conservative as such there was no need to radically alter the social role of women. If we are going to talk about repression it was indeed the state's role to shape everyone to an ideal image. This still isn't "traditionalism"
>1930–1945 - The government punishes male homosexual behaviour with administrative punishment, such as public admonition and confinement"
Again, there were gays in the government. The reality is that these people were more than likely persecuted for their opposition to the regime and also branded as homosexual to hit two birds with one stone.
>This coming from the man who thinks Benito "literally sending gays on an island" Mussolini had no problem with homosexuality. What incentive do you have to try and argue that fascist Italy was not extremely right wing on social issues anyway?
No Mussolini had no problems with gays for their gayness alone. He was friends with Marinetti who was clearly gay.
There is no such thing as "right wing on social issues", Fascist social policy was a matter of pragmatism and health.
>Neither fascists or non fascists deny this
I deny it.
>Are you having fun being a contrarian?
I'm having fun looking at reality without ideological and prejudiced lens.