This may be a bit more than you wish to read, but have a look. Maybe the first three paragraphs tell you everything about fascism you need to know. However, if you wish to read more about the conection between fascism, communism and feminism, you need to read more than just those first paragraphs. Take a a look: http://fathersforlife.org/culture/ideology.htm
Eric Hoffer is mentioned in that page, and it is a good thing to see what Eric Hoffer had to say about fascism, especially about the evolution of fascism in the U.S.
Just to make sure that you don’t overlook the context in which Eric Hoffer is mentioned, here it is, as is the quote from Eric Hoffer (at the end of the quoted text):
Even though their methods reek of a communist conspiracy, most, if not all, feminists object strongly to any accusations of being communists. Does a leopard change its spots? He would still be a leopard even if he could. Are communist ideologies no longer communist just because they are now encompassed under the all-embracing term feminism? 
Many people said that “The end justifies the means.” If the means used by feminism are the same as those that communism, fascism, or any other extremism use to achieve their ends, and if the ends that will be achieved are the same, the domination of society — and indeed the domination of the world — and the planned destruction of our families and moral traditions by a group of like-minded extremists, how can anyone then claim that feminism is any more benevolent to society than any of its related ideologies are? 
Prof. Daniel Amneus, devoted his book “The Garbage Generation” to the description of the consequences of feminist extremism and how little there is about the outcomes of communism and feminism that can be used to tell them apart. On page 64 to 66 he says:
According to feminists Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin:
“The matriarchal mode of child-rearing, in which each individual is nurtured rather than dominated from birth provides the rational basis for a genuinely healthy society, a society of self-regulating, positive individuals.”
Things are this way in the ghettos, where half of the young bear the surnames of their mothers, and where the proportion of such maternal surnames increases every year, along with crime and the other accompaniments of matriarchy.
“You Frenchmen,” said an Iroquois Indian three hundred years ago to the Jesuit Father Le Jeune, “love only your own children; we love all the children of the tribe.” In a promiscuous matriclan this is the best way to see that all children are cared for; but it will not create the deep family loyalties needed to usher a society out of the Stone Age. “At the core of patriarchy,” says Adrienne Rich, “is the individual family unit which originated with the idea of property and the desire to see one’s property transmitted to one’s biological descendants.” This creation of wealth cannot be motivated by a desire to transmit it to an ex-wife or to a welfare system which undermines the families whose resources it feeds upon.
The patriarchal family, whose linchpin is female chastity and loyalty, makes men work. That is why civilization must be patriarchal and why it slides into chaos, as ours is doing, where family arrangements become matrilineal. What feminist Marie Richmond-Abbott says of men in general is especially true of men in capitalist patriarchy:
“A man’s life is defined by his work, his occupation. The first question a man is usually asked is, “What do you do?” People shape their perception of him according to his answer.”
A man’s life may be defined by his work even under matriarchy, but it is only loosely defined. Here, described by the 19th century German explorer, G. W. Schweinfurth, is the way males perform when females regard them as inessential. The tribe described is the Monbuttu:
“Whilst the women attend to the tillage of the soil and the gathering of the harvest, the men, except they are absent either for war or hunting, spend the entire day in idleness. In the early hours of the morning they may be found under the shade of the oil-palms, lounging at full length upon their carved benches and smoking tobacco. During the middle of the day they gossip with their friends in the cool halls.”
Similarly, under communism, the state’s guarantee of economic security weakens the male’s commitment to work and undermines his productivity. “The other day,” writes Eric Hoffer,
“I happened to ask myself a routine question and stumbled on a surprising answer. The question was: What is the uppermost problem which confronts the leadership in a Communist regime? The answer: The chief preoccupation of every government between the Elbe and the China Sea is how to make people work — how to induce them to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines, and so forth. It is the most vital problem which confronts them day in day out, and it shapes not only their domestic policies but their relations with the outside world.”
Who wants to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines — unless the work, unsatisfying and unfulfilling in itself, is made meaningful by a man’s knowledge that it must be done if he is to provide for his family?
—The Garbage Generation, by Daniel Amneus, pp. 64-66
—end quote; more at http://fathersforlife.org/culture/ideology.htm
The web page that contains that text also contains a link to an article titled “Matriarchy in the USSR“. Check that out. It is not very long but is essential reading.
The key statement in the article is the last one:
“When at our days representatives of so named women’s movement debate about unequal position of women in ex-USSR, it would be useful to recall the real position, which was got to contemporary society from the times of USSR. Mature soviet society was a society of developed matriarchy, and motion to mature matriarchy was a content of soviet history since 1917.”
That appears to explains it all, perhaps even that the beginning of modern social evolution with respect to matriarchy is firmly rooted in the Bolshevik revolution. The article is quite clear on that the roots of the Bolshevik revolution go back to the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Marx and Engels (1848/49)
The question now is: how did the Soviet matriarchy spread from there and then to every part of the “free” world?
I like the addendum to the article:
“It would be strange and new for some people that we consider modern society and analyse it. Scientists are accustomed to search matriarchy somewhere at far away islands or in Africa. We know it but we can only be surprised at their waiting for future to study our societies as a past in their academic manner.
Possibly matriarchal modern society is Israel. Its laws openly assert matrilineality and there is no need to prove and analyse anything (see article “Who is a Jew?” in Wikipedia).”