>>2445209There's that too, and I am familiar to what you're referring to. But see the point first and sixth point I listed about contemporary reactionary (ethnonationalist, masculinist/misogynist, racist, religious extremist, etc.) movements: However they were accepting of "using" women like that, they did not tolerate women having political or moral authority over them. Except in the case of a mother having some authority over her children in the context of an otherwise patriarchal family.
Women could be mothers, friends, lovers, they could even be respected professionally in rare cases like Riefenstahl and Hanna Reitsch were. But they could never be "above" a man in terms of ultimate moral, economic, political and spiritual authority. The family unit remained fundamentally patriarchal, and a woman's interests were subordinate to a man's.
The existence of what at first glance might appear as "free love" among some segments of the SS was a politically empowering for women as prostitution was of female slaves in Ancient Rome. It's simply not the same as women being seen as potential equals or being capable of entering positions of authority which might threaten the general status of men within their sexual hierarchy.
>>2445211I'm not unaware of the role of racist white women in early American feminism, including women like Margaret Sanger and her cooperation with known eugenicists, as well as her own statements.
>>2445201I don't get the impression at all that Zizek ever implied everyone wants to secretly rape and kill because doing so is taboo under contemporary liberalism. Or that the obscene enjoyment he described is somehow universal across all classes, eras, and political movements.
There is a general appeal to a "you may" - including for Liberals. But the difference here is in what contemporary reactionaries intend to do. The enjoyment of being able to be openly gay, or transition as a trans woman regardless if this enjoyment is heightened through the breaking of taboo, is not comparable to sadistic fantasies about subjecting women to rape, or owning minorities as slaves.
I know some people really want to do this "ISIS and Nazism are, psychosexually, basically just Liberalism too" but they're not.
>>2445204It has nothing to do with "enlightenment" in the purely "rational" and "intellectual" sense, it has to do with a very fundamental difference in both attitude, as well as self-worth and confidence. I'm on the record here having state before Communism is in fact, not rational, and people trying to convince random people to "become" Communists through Logic and Facts are completely missing the point of what it is about.
I'm also not someone who thinks the intellectual basis of Liberalism isn't in itself a load of nonsense, and a convenient narrative for what it is really about.
>Condescending toneMatter of perception and attitude. I didn't condemn or ridicule them. I stated that NEETs, as far as they're comfortable with their existence (be it access to video games and anime, or deeply artistic hobbies, working out and reading philosophy all day) are not the same as certain brands of reactionaries seething silently about how other people having sex, whilst they aren't, and how the idea of a black woman in a position of authority makes them feel both insecure and enraged.
The topic of how Muslim men in general fit into this is a varied one. But I definitely don't believe all Muslim men are backwards, and they all fantasize about raping their wives and killing their sons for being gay or something. What I listed as the tenets of modern reactionaries is not tied to any particular religion, culture or ethnic group. There are many "white" Christian groups far more reactionary than the average Muslim Turk, be it those living in Turkey, or in European migrant communities.