What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence
'Funny, angry, urgent. Ghodsee is going to start a revolution' Daisy Buchanan, author of The Sisterhood
A witty, fiercely intelligent exploration of why capitalism is rigged against women and what we can do about it.
Unregulated capitalism is bad for women. Socialism, if done properly, leads to economic independence, better labour conditions, better work/family balance and, yes, even better sex.
If you like the idea of such outcomes, then come along for an exploration of how we can change women’s lives for the better.
A witty, fiercely intelligent exploration of why capitalism is rigged against women and what we can do about it.
Unregulated capitalism is bad for women. Socialism, if done properly, leads to economic independence, better labour conditions, better work/family balance and, yes, even better sex.
If you like the idea of such outcomes, then come along for an exploration of how we can change women’s lives for the better.
ebook
First published November 20, 2018
967 people are currently reading
28845 people want to read
About the author
Kristen R. Ghodsee
21 books467 followersKristen R. Ghodsee an award-winning author and ethnographer. She is professor of Russian and East European Studies and a member of the Graduate Group in Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. Her work has been translated into over twenty-five languages and has appeared in publications such as Foreign Affairs, Dissent, Jacobin, Ms. Magazine, The New Republic, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, She is the author of 12 books, and she is the host of the podcast, A.K. 47, which discusses the works of the Russian Bolshevik, Alexandra Kollontai. Her latest book is Everyday Utopia: What 2000 Years of Wild Experiments Can Teach Us About the Good Life, which appeared with Simon & Schuster in May 2023.
She loves popcorn, manual typewriters, and Bassett hounds.
Website: www.kristenghodsee.com
Podcast: ak47.buzzsprout.com
She loves popcorn, manual typewriters, and Bassett hounds.
Website: www.kristenghodsee.com
Podcast: ak47.buzzsprout.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,181 reviews
February 17, 2019
As an avowed Marxist feminist, I found this to be an utterly infuriating text.
Ghodsee is an academic historian who has written a popular press book that seeks to dispel some widespread myths about the horrors of Eastern European state socialism. She does this with the explicit aim of opening up space in contemporary US political discourse for consideration of how more redistributive and regulatory economic policies would be good for women. All of this is seemingly laudable.
The problem comes when Ghodsee actually begins her analysis. In a book about socialism and feminism, there is hardly a single mention of working class women’s activism. In fact, Ghodsee dedicates an entire chapter to how state socialist regimes promoted women into their highest ranks as powerful leaders. She does this to make a point about how young girls in capitalist societies need to see powerful women in order to be inspired to become leaders themselves. This is just unreconstructed neoliberal, lean in codswallop! The point of socialist feminism is that getting a few privileged, elite women into powerful roles does nothing for the vast majority of women.
Consistently as well Ghodsee makes asinine comments about how socialism is basically just an expanded welfare states with markets and private control of the economy still intact. Because Ghodsee’s reference points for socialism are Eastern Bloc countries and Scandinavia, she offers a distorted picture of what socialism actually is. If you want to know about actual alternatives to capitalism, you will not find them in this book.
Indeed, Ghodsee has been made into something of a spokesperson for socialism in US media despite the fact that she has fairly centrist politics and a demonstrated lack of familiarity with socialist feminist theory and activism. Her frankly random choice of “recommended reading” testifies to this.
In summary, it is a real shame that this book will likely be many Americans first sustained introduction to socialist feminism. Ghodsee had an opportunity to make a real intervention, but she instead wasted it by telling her more radical readers to take the capitalist rag “Reason” seriously as a source for information. Ghodsee presents a world where the alternative to capitalism is slightly more regulated capitalism, and where political activism takes the form of voting instead of collective action.
Don’t waste your time on this if you are already somewhat sympathetic to socialism. Read Silvia Federici’s “Revolution at Point Zero” instead. If you are not already sympathetic to socialism, then perhaps Ghodsee’s confused and overly conciliatory treatise can help guide you away from the echo chamber of capitalist ideology. But even then, Federici would be a better starting point.
Ghodsee is an academic historian who has written a popular press book that seeks to dispel some widespread myths about the horrors of Eastern European state socialism. She does this with the explicit aim of opening up space in contemporary US political discourse for consideration of how more redistributive and regulatory economic policies would be good for women. All of this is seemingly laudable.
The problem comes when Ghodsee actually begins her analysis. In a book about socialism and feminism, there is hardly a single mention of working class women’s activism. In fact, Ghodsee dedicates an entire chapter to how state socialist regimes promoted women into their highest ranks as powerful leaders. She does this to make a point about how young girls in capitalist societies need to see powerful women in order to be inspired to become leaders themselves. This is just unreconstructed neoliberal, lean in codswallop! The point of socialist feminism is that getting a few privileged, elite women into powerful roles does nothing for the vast majority of women.
Consistently as well Ghodsee makes asinine comments about how socialism is basically just an expanded welfare states with markets and private control of the economy still intact. Because Ghodsee’s reference points for socialism are Eastern Bloc countries and Scandinavia, she offers a distorted picture of what socialism actually is. If you want to know about actual alternatives to capitalism, you will not find them in this book.
Indeed, Ghodsee has been made into something of a spokesperson for socialism in US media despite the fact that she has fairly centrist politics and a demonstrated lack of familiarity with socialist feminist theory and activism. Her frankly random choice of “recommended reading” testifies to this.
In summary, it is a real shame that this book will likely be many Americans first sustained introduction to socialist feminism. Ghodsee had an opportunity to make a real intervention, but she instead wasted it by telling her more radical readers to take the capitalist rag “Reason” seriously as a source for information. Ghodsee presents a world where the alternative to capitalism is slightly more regulated capitalism, and where political activism takes the form of voting instead of collective action.
Don’t waste your time on this if you are already somewhat sympathetic to socialism. Read Silvia Federici’s “Revolution at Point Zero” instead. If you are not already sympathetic to socialism, then perhaps Ghodsee’s confused and overly conciliatory treatise can help guide you away from the echo chamber of capitalist ideology. But even then, Federici would be a better starting point.
July 13, 2023
Eye catching title for sure and the content was just as interesting!
June 29, 2020
When women enjoy their own sources of income, and the state guarantees social security in old age, illness, and disability, women have no economic reason to stay in abusive, unfulfilling, or otherwise unhealthy relationships.
3 1/2 stars. I keep changing my mind about this book. I actually really enjoyed reading it - the author's style was informal and accessible, and it complemented my previous Marxist feminist readings - but I also think it is a little confusing exactly what the author is in favour of.
Ghodsee does examine former Soviet countries, looking at data and opinion polls to determine the policies that benefited women*, as well as the ways in which they failed. She states immediately that she is not an apologist for Stalinism; she is well aware of the human rights abuses that took place, and of the myriad ways the Soviet Union failed, but she also believes we can utilize some of the better socialist ideas to make a society which is fairer. Especially for women.
Since the middle of the nineteenth century, European social theorists argued that the female sex is uniquely disadvantaged in an economic system that prizes profits and private property over people.
Yet, it seems to me that Ghodsee is not really arguing for socialism, as the title and she herself suggest. Or, at least, she does not do so very successfully. The policies that Ghodsee favours are actually more in line with the Nordic model. People often throw around the word "socialism" in relation to Nordic countries, but they are, in fact, capitalist countries with high taxation and publicly-funded programs like free post-secondary education, universal healthcare, and tax-subsidized daycare. I'm a big fan myself.
It was nice, though, to see her dispel some of the one-sided myths about former Soviet countries. If you've grown up being taught that everyone under socialism was a prisoner who breathed a dramatic sigh of relief once the Berlin wall fell and free markets rushed in, you should read this book. Or better yet, read more balanced accounts such as Alexievich's Secondhand Time or Drakulic's How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed. It is a complex issue and not every Soviet country was the same. Ghodsee quotes a little Eastern European story/joke that reflects the conflicted feelings of former Soviet citizens:
“What’s wrong with you?” her husband says. “What happened?”
“I had a terrible nightmare,” she says. “I dreamed that we had the medicine we needed, that our refrigerator was full of food, and that the streets outside were safe and clean.”
“How is that a nightmare?”
The woman shakes her head and shudders. “I thought the Communists were back in power.”
I also enjoyed reading more about sexual economics theory. The "American model" is at odds with women’s emancipation and independence. It makes perfect sense. This winner-takes-all brand of capitalism relies on women putting in hours and hours of unpaid domestic labour and childcare. When women are not financially independent, they are forced to marry and stay with partners they may dislike, find sexually dissatisfying, or are even abusive.
I was equally glad that the author discussed how getting women into positions of power is not really the crux of the problem. In fact, I wish she had spent more time on this. While women CEOs and political leaders are important, this is not a reality and therefore not a major concern for the majority of working class and lower middle class women. Far more important is the need for work protections, guaranteed maternity leave and pay, and affordable childcare options. Fixing these roots of the problem would likely lead to more women in higher level jobs anyway.
This book is not a whim inspired by Bernie Sanders. Ghodsee has spent twenty years on this subject and she clearly knows it well. I think her conclusion could be stronger and clearer on what she sees as the way forward-- she frequently talks about an "alternative to capitalism", which suggests a whole socialist overhaul of the system, and yet capitalism and all the social benefits she desires are not mutually-exclusive. This quote makes me think that the author sees "capitalism" as synonymous with "plutocracy":
The most dangerous enemy of plutocracy is large numbers of citizens working together for a common cause. It’s no coincidence that capitalism thrives on an ideology of self-interest and individualism, and that its defenders will try to discredit collectivist ideals based on altruism and cooperation.
Capitalism does not necessarily fail its citizens; plutocracy does. Plutocracy relies on keeping people divided along gender, racial, religious, or other fault lines. Capitalism does not have to be the same thing. You can actually have capitalism and a welfare state. The idea that we have to choose between capitalism and pure socialism is a lie that conservatives tell to scare voters.
It's definitely worth a read, but I would bear in mind that when the author says "capitalism", she is speaking about a particularly plutocratic branch of capitalism like the one currently operating in the United States.
* Ghodsee acknowledges trans women in her Author's Note and how they were largely excluded from 19th and 20th century discourse. She notes the limitations of the data available and how "women" generally referred to those assigned female at birth.
Facebook | Instagram
June 9, 2021
“You are not a commodity. Your depression and anxiety are not just chemical imbalances in your brain but reasonable responses to a system that thrives on your dehumanization.”
So, yes, I bought this book because of the title, and at the risk of shocking some of my GR friends, yes, it is preaching to the choir more than a little bit with me, as well as validating some long-held opinions about systemic sexism and why capitalism is a tool of oppression the patricarchy loves to use to their advantage. So sure, the title is meant to get your attention, but let me assure you that you will not be let down by the content.
No one had to convince me that savage capitalism is bad for everyone, and especially women, but the way Ghodsee documents and explains the impact of our wealth redistribution system on women’s lives, and the way it systematically devalues them and makes them, more often than not, dependent on men’s wealth for support (if not survival), is morbidly fascinating.
Oh, and in case you are wondering, the argument the title makes is that in a capitalist society, everything, including women's sexuality, is a commodity for sale, which means women who are not fully financially independent may find themselves having to settle for less-than satisfying partners in order to ensure their basic needs are met. If women don't have to rely on anyone for their livelihood and support, they are free to pursue love and sex for its own sake rather than using those things as a good to be traded. And yes, there is A LOT of data supporting this.
Ghodsee works hard to be fair and nuanced in her argument: she is well-aware that the S-word freaks some people out, and she has obviously had to explain the difference between socialism and totalitarianism too many times (are dictionaries really that hard? Jesus). But neither does she think the Soviet Union got everything right, and she is careful to highlight the good and the bad that we can take away from history in order to think of a better future.
Broken into sections that explore working wages, motherhood and its associated responsibilities, women in positions of leadership – and of course, sex, this book takes a look at the history of socialism and feminism, at how often those two ideologies overlap and go hand and hand, as well as comparing how each of the main topics worked out in socialist societies vs. capitalism societies. As mentioned, she does not romanticize the Soviet Union, but shows how some genuine socialist policies not only help women achieve a better quality of life (in general, and sex, as a side-effect), but how that quality of life ends up resonating for the betterment of society in general.
While I really enjoyed reading this book (even when it made me want to smack my head against a wall), it’s also obvious that it is a primer on the subject. The arguments are broader than they are deep, and I think part of Ghodsee’s goal was to make her readers curious, to encourage them to dig further into the subject by themselves, as her generous suggested reading list seem to indicate. And that’s fine: realizing that there are alternatives that could work better and that change is possible is an important realization. One can only hope a book like this finds its way in the right hands and inspires people to educate themselves further and take the actions they can to affect change.
Very recommended.
So, yes, I bought this book because of the title, and at the risk of shocking some of my GR friends, yes, it is preaching to the choir more than a little bit with me, as well as validating some long-held opinions about systemic sexism and why capitalism is a tool of oppression the patricarchy loves to use to their advantage. So sure, the title is meant to get your attention, but let me assure you that you will not be let down by the content.
No one had to convince me that savage capitalism is bad for everyone, and especially women, but the way Ghodsee documents and explains the impact of our wealth redistribution system on women’s lives, and the way it systematically devalues them and makes them, more often than not, dependent on men’s wealth for support (if not survival), is morbidly fascinating.
Oh, and in case you are wondering, the argument the title makes is that in a capitalist society, everything, including women's sexuality, is a commodity for sale, which means women who are not fully financially independent may find themselves having to settle for less-than satisfying partners in order to ensure their basic needs are met. If women don't have to rely on anyone for their livelihood and support, they are free to pursue love and sex for its own sake rather than using those things as a good to be traded. And yes, there is A LOT of data supporting this.
Ghodsee works hard to be fair and nuanced in her argument: she is well-aware that the S-word freaks some people out, and she has obviously had to explain the difference between socialism and totalitarianism too many times (are dictionaries really that hard? Jesus). But neither does she think the Soviet Union got everything right, and she is careful to highlight the good and the bad that we can take away from history in order to think of a better future.
Broken into sections that explore working wages, motherhood and its associated responsibilities, women in positions of leadership – and of course, sex, this book takes a look at the history of socialism and feminism, at how often those two ideologies overlap and go hand and hand, as well as comparing how each of the main topics worked out in socialist societies vs. capitalism societies. As mentioned, she does not romanticize the Soviet Union, but shows how some genuine socialist policies not only help women achieve a better quality of life (in general, and sex, as a side-effect), but how that quality of life ends up resonating for the betterment of society in general.
While I really enjoyed reading this book (even when it made me want to smack my head against a wall), it’s also obvious that it is a primer on the subject. The arguments are broader than they are deep, and I think part of Ghodsee’s goal was to make her readers curious, to encourage them to dig further into the subject by themselves, as her generous suggested reading list seem to indicate. And that’s fine: realizing that there are alternatives that could work better and that change is possible is an important realization. One can only hope a book like this finds its way in the right hands and inspires people to educate themselves further and take the actions they can to affect change.
Very recommended.
February 2, 2024
The title of the book, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence, grabbed my attention. I am not an advocate for socialism and neither is Kristen Ghodsee, the author. The tagline, economic independence (for women) more appropriately describes the book's premise.
Ghodsee shares historic information about various countries and how they have approached education for girls and women, childcare, healthcare, and other resources that help level the playing field for women rather than the patriarchal model where the man works and the woman stays home and raises children. I wasn't aware that Nordic countries implemented paid maternity leave in the early 1900s and many Eastern European countries implemented paid maternity leave in the 1920s. Currently, Sweden is the most generous country; it provides 480 days of maternity leave with 80% of pay. Dads in Sweden get 90 days of paid paternity leave.
Currently the US and six other countries do not offer paid family leave. Only 12% of women in the US work for companies that provide paid family leave.
Safety net programs and resources that help women be economically independent are critical; otherwise they typically may remain in abusive or bad relationships.
Ghodsee shares historic information about various countries and how they have approached education for girls and women, childcare, healthcare, and other resources that help level the playing field for women rather than the patriarchal model where the man works and the woman stays home and raises children. I wasn't aware that Nordic countries implemented paid maternity leave in the early 1900s and many Eastern European countries implemented paid maternity leave in the 1920s. Currently, Sweden is the most generous country; it provides 480 days of maternity leave with 80% of pay. Dads in Sweden get 90 days of paid paternity leave.
Currently the US and six other countries do not offer paid family leave. Only 12% of women in the US work for companies that provide paid family leave.
Safety net programs and resources that help women be economically independent are critical; otherwise they typically may remain in abusive or bad relationships.
November 24, 2018
Short version: sex was better under socialism for a nut who never lived that.
Long version:
A mystical preacher talking about Paradise.
Under Socialism the woman had both the traditional role - cook, wash, and so on - and the modern role - employee working full time. Food scarcity also meant long queues waiting for food delivery. Poverty meant no washing machine, no dishwasher, everything was done by hand, the diapers also. No hot water meant accidents while moving the boiling water pan from the kitchen to the bath tub, which was moved into the kitchen if possible.
Also some Socialist Countries, like Romania, expressly forbade contraception and most Socialist countries have had strict rules for the abortion.
Rape, HIV, and other "shameful" acts were called diseases of the West and were carefully swept under the rug.
There were strict rules, most of the time unwritten, of separating the spouses in the work place. And if the man was higher on the hierarchical ladder that meant that the woman was the one left to find a new work place and fast.
Long version:
A mystical preacher talking about Paradise.
Under Socialism the woman had both the traditional role - cook, wash, and so on - and the modern role - employee working full time. Food scarcity also meant long queues waiting for food delivery. Poverty meant no washing machine, no dishwasher, everything was done by hand, the diapers also. No hot water meant accidents while moving the boiling water pan from the kitchen to the bath tub, which was moved into the kitchen if possible.
Also some Socialist Countries, like Romania, expressly forbade contraception and most Socialist countries have had strict rules for the abortion.
Rape, HIV, and other "shameful" acts were called diseases of the West and were carefully swept under the rug.
There were strict rules, most of the time unwritten, of separating the spouses in the work place. And if the man was higher on the hierarchical ladder that meant that the woman was the one left to find a new work place and fast.
March 31, 2025
3.5 stars
What I most appreciated about this book is how the author explicitly addresses how money influences romantic and sexual relationships. Even though she does so within a heteronormative context, it was refreshing to read someone write about how money and economic systems can inhibit women’s choices or at least directly influence them in the context of dating and physical intimacy. I also liked that the book was concise and wasn’t longer than it needed to be.
That said, I did find some of her writing at times a bit immature. I wondered if she was trying to come across as more relatable given that she’s an academic and some of the writing in this book is academic, though maybe she went too far (e.g., some of her writing about AI was a little weird, like a joke she made about AI mistreating men – I’m not someone who takes offense at anti-men jokes though the way she did it I was like… hm). I also thought some of her arguments were a bit gender essentialist. I get the point and importance of promoting women into positions of power, but as someone who has multiple female/nonbinary friends who’ve been abused by women in positions of power, it’s a bit erroneous to ignore that women can perpetuate patriarchal/toxic ways of treating people. Finally, I agree with other reviewers that the author does idealize Northern European countries a bit, though I also think she is at times critical of them and nuanced in her writing of socialism (i.e., despite the title of the book, the author isn’t just wholeheartedly believing socialism will solve all feminist issues, despite what some other reviewers say).
Anyway, a solid 3.5 read that I’m rounding up to 4 because of the relevance and interestingness of the topic.
What I most appreciated about this book is how the author explicitly addresses how money influences romantic and sexual relationships. Even though she does so within a heteronormative context, it was refreshing to read someone write about how money and economic systems can inhibit women’s choices or at least directly influence them in the context of dating and physical intimacy. I also liked that the book was concise and wasn’t longer than it needed to be.
That said, I did find some of her writing at times a bit immature. I wondered if she was trying to come across as more relatable given that she’s an academic and some of the writing in this book is academic, though maybe she went too far (e.g., some of her writing about AI was a little weird, like a joke she made about AI mistreating men – I’m not someone who takes offense at anti-men jokes though the way she did it I was like… hm). I also thought some of her arguments were a bit gender essentialist. I get the point and importance of promoting women into positions of power, but as someone who has multiple female/nonbinary friends who’ve been abused by women in positions of power, it’s a bit erroneous to ignore that women can perpetuate patriarchal/toxic ways of treating people. Finally, I agree with other reviewers that the author does idealize Northern European countries a bit, though I also think she is at times critical of them and nuanced in her writing of socialism (i.e., despite the title of the book, the author isn’t just wholeheartedly believing socialism will solve all feminist issues, despite what some other reviewers say).
Anyway, a solid 3.5 read that I’m rounding up to 4 because of the relevance and interestingness of the topic.
July 24, 2024
To write a book with such a stupid title and content is not for everyone.
Ghodsee never lived in so called socialist countries, but uses their bullshit data and propaganda to state that women had more orgasms then the one living in the free world… Weird ah?
If someone wants to believe in that - fine, but it continues to be false info and can’t be proven scientifically. Women were anything but financially independent in last century communist dictatorships!
Or if you want to check it, good luck - North Korea is waiting for you even now! 🤡
Ghodsee never lived in so called socialist countries, but uses their bullshit data and propaganda to state that women had more orgasms then the one living in the free world… Weird ah?
If someone wants to believe in that - fine, but it continues to be false info and can’t be proven scientifically. Women were anything but financially independent in last century communist dictatorships!
Or if you want to check it, good luck - North Korea is waiting for you even now! 🤡
November 1, 2018
Award-winning author Kristen Ghodsee has written a handful of books exploring communism, gender and ethnicity, and after appreciating Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, I will be purchasing her other works to dip in and out of. As soon as I read the synopsis for this, I knew it was right up my street. Having had an issue with capitalism for as long as I can remember, I was not in need of convincing that adopting some socialist principles may be a better option for many people, including women. However, the fascinating information provided had me completely engaged, and I found it difficult to put it down. I usually take my time with non-fiction but not here! She illustrates that communist ideology could lead to real improvements in women’s literacy, education, professional training, as well as access to health care, the extension of paid maternity leave, and a reduction of their economic dependence on men.
I understand that this is a divisive and controversial topic and politics often gets people hot under the collar but we owe it to ourselves to look for a better way instead of just accepting the way society and wealth currently work. Sometimes I find that books such as these waffle on in an incoherent fashion, but I felt the arguments here were easy to understand and to comprehend. There are many examples from communist and post-communist states that back up many of the points she makes. I hope that this book gets the wide readership it deserves as the case it presents is a strong and convincing one. Highly recommended.
Many thanks to Bodley Head for an ARC. I was not required to post a review, and all thoughts and opinions expressed are my own.
I understand that this is a divisive and controversial topic and politics often gets people hot under the collar but we owe it to ourselves to look for a better way instead of just accepting the way society and wealth currently work. Sometimes I find that books such as these waffle on in an incoherent fashion, but I felt the arguments here were easy to understand and to comprehend. There are many examples from communist and post-communist states that back up many of the points she makes. I hope that this book gets the wide readership it deserves as the case it presents is a strong and convincing one. Highly recommended.
Many thanks to Bodley Head for an ARC. I was not required to post a review, and all thoughts and opinions expressed are my own.
April 1, 2023
A provocative title that proved to be a quick and interesting read! While I'm not sure this has a strong enough thesis to have made this an A+ (I think this would have been better positioned as an essay collection), there was a lot to mull on and I think is approachable for those are capitalists interested in thinking through the implications of a free market system on cis women (I would say there's not really a meaningful incorporation of how femmes and trans women fit into this equation)
March 22, 2022
Updated review
This was laughably disappointing. A good concept/ starting point but terrible execution.
When I started reading this, I expected to agree with most of what the author would say and I hoped to get some concrete examples of how socialism can work to serve the many and how we can implement socialist concepts to better our (or in the case of the book, Americans') lives. Unfortunately I didn't get this at all.
Ghodsee's writing style was incredibly messy and confusing. I wouldn't consider her writing to be accessible. She gives many examples but never properly uses them to to get to an actual point or to convince the reader of what we need to learn from all of this. Also, what was up with her weak attempt at humor. Her lack of clear and concise writing also manifested itself in the fact that I felt I had to basically use my own knowledge about feminism and socialism to subtract any useful point out of what she wrote. Not ideal when you meant to write a book that is accessible to a large audience.
Furthermore, I surprisingly didn't agree with a lot of what she said, or particularly, the way she said them. What was up with that whole neoliberal filler chapter about powerful women?? Damn. What was up with the way she was talking about Ken's ex-wife?? What was up with Ghodsee dismissing a women's complaint about life under socialism because she claimed she was 'privileged' as she had access to child care. Overall, Ghodsee didn't get to the root of the capitalism issue enough and focused too much on things like child care and parental leave, things that are very important and great steps towards equality, but won't fix all of our problems. She mentions some interesting things such as how the systems in the Northern states work well because they are largely homogenous countries and how we need to analyze the impact of capitalism on our mental health and how this influences our happiness and sex lives, but then doesn't really talk more on this, which I found unfortunate. The one thing I did find interesting was the Sexual economics theory, but even then, I think she could have done a better job at analyzing and applying it. Furthermore, I think the final chapter was written from a severe position of privilege and could have used an intersectional lens. Saying that voting, learning about socialism and 'reclaiming your time' is incredibly limiting. The fact that she barely, if at all, considers community building and activist efforts as a way to liberation is unfortunate, to say the least.
Overall, I feel like this book tried to do too much, which made it end up being a huge disappointment for me.
Looking for any recommendations of books that approach socialism and feminism from an accessible, practicable and intersectional lens. Something that actually gives some tools we could apply in the future and leaves me more hopeful for what is possible.
This was laughably disappointing. A good concept/ starting point but terrible execution.
When I started reading this, I expected to agree with most of what the author would say and I hoped to get some concrete examples of how socialism can work to serve the many and how we can implement socialist concepts to better our (or in the case of the book, Americans') lives. Unfortunately I didn't get this at all.
Ghodsee's writing style was incredibly messy and confusing. I wouldn't consider her writing to be accessible. She gives many examples but never properly uses them to to get to an actual point or to convince the reader of what we need to learn from all of this. Also, what was up with her weak attempt at humor. Her lack of clear and concise writing also manifested itself in the fact that I felt I had to basically use my own knowledge about feminism and socialism to subtract any useful point out of what she wrote. Not ideal when you meant to write a book that is accessible to a large audience.
Furthermore, I surprisingly didn't agree with a lot of what she said, or particularly, the way she said them. What was up with that whole neoliberal filler chapter about powerful women?? Damn. What was up with the way she was talking about Ken's ex-wife?? What was up with Ghodsee dismissing a women's complaint about life under socialism because she claimed she was 'privileged' as she had access to child care. Overall, Ghodsee didn't get to the root of the capitalism issue enough and focused too much on things like child care and parental leave, things that are very important and great steps towards equality, but won't fix all of our problems. She mentions some interesting things such as how the systems in the Northern states work well because they are largely homogenous countries and how we need to analyze the impact of capitalism on our mental health and how this influences our happiness and sex lives, but then doesn't really talk more on this, which I found unfortunate. The one thing I did find interesting was the Sexual economics theory, but even then, I think she could have done a better job at analyzing and applying it. Furthermore, I think the final chapter was written from a severe position of privilege and could have used an intersectional lens. Saying that voting, learning about socialism and 'reclaiming your time' is incredibly limiting. The fact that she barely, if at all, considers community building and activist efforts as a way to liberation is unfortunate, to say the least.
Overall, I feel like this book tried to do too much, which made it end up being a huge disappointment for me.
Looking for any recommendations of books that approach socialism and feminism from an accessible, practicable and intersectional lens. Something that actually gives some tools we could apply in the future and leaves me more hopeful for what is possible.
July 14, 2018
A fun and readable trip through the history of attempts to build an egalitarian society, with humor and a grounding in decades of research.
March 12, 2021
Her arguments are 95% emotional, and have already been refuted time and again in anti-socialist literature. I lost count of false equivalencies just within the first chapter. The author doesn't understand what capitalism is (most importantly, *not* the heavily regulated, corporate monopolism we have in the US), or she wouldn't be arguing that it inherently discriminates against mothers. The book was automatically returned to my digital library before I finished it, and I'm not bothering to re-borrow it.
August 8, 2023
1 ⭐ for the effort of gathering facts, statistics, going through different data and researches... But this is the limit. A lot of bullsh*t interpretations of the aformentioned facts, statistics and data. When the author was talking about Bulgaria, where she apparently had lived for 3 years, almost everything was just a sugar-coated version of the reality or a retelling of the reality that the regime wanted to be presented to the world.
The book was bearable in the parts where the author just gived information without providing her explanations. Mostly, because almost all of the explanations served to prove a single point and didn't actually reflect the reality - no, the women being part of the work-force in Bulgaria didn't mean they were economically independent; no, you cannot dismiss the fact that the domestic violence, rape and sex-coercion were common and were consciously hidden by the regime as a "downside of the state socialism"; no, sexuality was not an open topic in Bulgaria although there indeed was a book on the topic published; and etc., the examples are too many.
Also, being a feminist and bashing on other women's choices to be housewives, while you wouldn't accept a man paying your bills, makes you a sh*tty woman and person, not a good feminist.
Moreover, every time the author emphasized that she was not a supporter of the state socialism that was practiced in Eastern Europe, the next at least 2 paragraphs were filled with praises... Ok, cool, hold your horses!
I can see how this book would be appealing for the people who haven't lived in the post-socialistic countries and have no other information about the reality of the life before 1989, but this is not showing this reality. It is showing a sugar-coated version that bashes on capitalism with only one false argument repeated again and again - women in the Eastern Bloc weren't freer and more independent before 1989, because receiving a salary is not an enough reason to become freer and more independent.
The book was bearable in the parts where the author just gived information without providing her explanations. Mostly, because almost all of the explanations served to prove a single point and didn't actually reflect the reality - no, the women being part of the work-force in Bulgaria didn't mean they were economically independent; no, you cannot dismiss the fact that the domestic violence, rape and sex-coercion were common and were consciously hidden by the regime as a "downside of the state socialism"; no, sexuality was not an open topic in Bulgaria although there indeed was a book on the topic published; and etc., the examples are too many.
Also, being a feminist and bashing on other women's choices to be housewives, while you wouldn't accept a man paying your bills, makes you a sh*tty woman and person, not a good feminist.
Moreover, every time the author emphasized that she was not a supporter of the state socialism that was practiced in Eastern Europe, the next at least 2 paragraphs were filled with praises... Ok, cool, hold your horses!
I can see how this book would be appealing for the people who haven't lived in the post-socialistic countries and have no other information about the reality of the life before 1989, but this is not showing this reality. It is showing a sugar-coated version that bashes on capitalism with only one false argument repeated again and again - women in the Eastern Bloc weren't freer and more independent before 1989, because receiving a salary is not an enough reason to become freer and more independent.
December 3, 2018
I don't think this is a fully baked book--I wish she would have spent some more time and made it a longer and more fully thought out thesis. As is, I don't think she really supports her thesis. However, this was still an excellent read. The point is obvious, but sometimes forgotten: Women are happier when they are financially independent. They can have better relationships and also better sex.
October 8, 2018
4+ stars
A thoroughly enjoyable and enlightening read on the multiple ways women's lives benefit from socialism. Ghodsee was preaching to the choir but her case is incredibly strong and convincing nevertheless, and is backed up with many examples from her research and time spent in Eastern Europe. Highly recommended!
Thank you Netgalley and Random House UK / Vintage Publishing for the advance copy, which was provided in exchange for an honest review.
A thoroughly enjoyable and enlightening read on the multiple ways women's lives benefit from socialism. Ghodsee was preaching to the choir but her case is incredibly strong and convincing nevertheless, and is backed up with many examples from her research and time spent in Eastern Europe. Highly recommended!
Thank you Netgalley and Random House UK / Vintage Publishing for the advance copy, which was provided in exchange for an honest review.
April 22, 2020
Lo mejor de este libro es que atraviesa temas que podrían parecer densos y aburridos, de una forma muy pedagógica y entretenida. Lo otro bacán, es que te llena de datos increíblemente interesantes y que hace un recorrido por la historia de ciertos países socialistas de manera crítica e integral. Y amé que no fuera una paja mental para llenar el ego de aquellas personas meramente interesadas en la vida académica, sino que es un libro que invita a la organización y al trabajo colectivo.
January 13, 2020
Reads like a dream - I finished the whole thing in one 2-hour sitting. As in her other works, the author demonstrates a very liberal and anglocentric understanding of capitalism and socialism. That she can nevertheless extract some very telling conclusions about the wellbeing of women under socialism versus their deprivations under capitalism, makes the book all the more valuable. In a couple of neat chapters she empirically settles the record on women civil participation, quality of life, views on relationship, work, childbirth and -rearing, etc. Only Sheila Fitzpatrick's the Cultural Front gave me comparable insights before.
'State socialism' (as opposed to 'democratic socialism', also known as not socialism. But ok ok, US context, carry on) is derided constantly, sometimes confusingly so. After giving multiple material reasons for why the move away from traditional marriages towards women's emancipation was curtailed — opposition from the conservative peasant majority, failure of economic and judicial infrastructure to support alimony and public daycare — she concludes that Stalin simply 'found it easier' to ditch the project. She likewise flings around 'natalist' as an accusatory barb, not taking into account that for the West the demographic context was completely different and the eastern bloc simply had to take difficult decisions. Not going for maximum population growth would have meant limiting the future options the USSR had in defending the revolution, without which no real emancipation was possible anyway.
All that notwithstanding, Ghodsee is of an activist bent and her appeals to join a collective struggle for a socialist and feminist future dovetail nicely with the function of the book: an ideological pickaxe with which to break open the debate on class, women and the state once more. Supremely useful, recommended.
'State socialism' (as opposed to 'democratic socialism', also known as not socialism. But ok ok, US context, carry on) is derided constantly, sometimes confusingly so. After giving multiple material reasons for why the move away from traditional marriages towards women's emancipation was curtailed — opposition from the conservative peasant majority, failure of economic and judicial infrastructure to support alimony and public daycare — she concludes that Stalin simply 'found it easier' to ditch the project. She likewise flings around 'natalist' as an accusatory barb, not taking into account that for the West the demographic context was completely different and the eastern bloc simply had to take difficult decisions. Not going for maximum population growth would have meant limiting the future options the USSR had in defending the revolution, without which no real emancipation was possible anyway.
All that notwithstanding, Ghodsee is of an activist bent and her appeals to join a collective struggle for a socialist and feminist future dovetail nicely with the function of the book: an ideological pickaxe with which to break open the debate on class, women and the state once more. Supremely useful, recommended.
June 17, 2020
Just talk to someone who lived in an ex-communist country - child care, health care and free education were there, but mostly did no worked properly. Reality, long queues to buy bare necessities, no access to washing machines, no hot water, power shortages, pollution, and lack of other "modernities".
Time wasted reading....
Time wasted reading....
December 3, 2019
This was a fascinating read. It's a book about politics which explores if and why women are happier living under socialist/communist governments than they are under capitalist/democratic governments.
The author focuses on data collected from Eastern European countries which used to be socialist but are now capitalist. It comes at the question from a lot of different directions. One fact that comes up again and again is that when a profit needs to be made, the first cuts that are made are ones that directly affect women instead of men.
My favorite information I learned in this book is what inspired the title. While the Berlin Wall was up and Germany was cut in two, a survey was done among women on both sides of the wall. Although women in the East had arguably more difficult lives, they rated their sex lives much, much higher than the women in the West. This book is full of interesting nuggets like that, and I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in politics or statistics.
The author focuses on data collected from Eastern European countries which used to be socialist but are now capitalist. It comes at the question from a lot of different directions. One fact that comes up again and again is that when a profit needs to be made, the first cuts that are made are ones that directly affect women instead of men.
My favorite information I learned in this book is what inspired the title. While the Berlin Wall was up and Germany was cut in two, a survey was done among women on both sides of the wall. Although women in the East had arguably more difficult lives, they rated their sex lives much, much higher than the women in the West. This book is full of interesting nuggets like that, and I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in politics or statistics.
March 18, 2019
I read this book for the Tokyo Feminist book club. 🙂 I doubt I would have read it otherwise because the title would have put me off.
OK, so firstly I think about a book about socialism shouldn’t refer to Sweden and Finland as “socialist countries”. They’re social democracies - they're still capitalist countries. In comparison to the US, they're much to the further left of the political spectrum, but I think it's strange to use the Soviet Union and Sweden as your main examples of "socialism" - they don't have that much in common.
This is stated at the start of the book:
“Throughout this book, I use the term “state socialism” or “state socialist” to refer to the states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union dominated by ruling Communist Parties where political freedoms were curtailed. I use the term “democratic socialism” or “democratic socialist” to refer to countries where socialist principles are championed by parties that compete in free and fair elections and where political rights are maintained.“
In part of the book, the writer, Kristen R. Ghodsee, talks about a friend of hers, who decided to be a stay-at-home mother. Whilst Ghodsee was working towards tenure as a working mother, her friend Lisa was spending her free time reading novels and exercising whilst her children napped (just to make it sound like being a stay-at-home mom is fun and luxurious).
Eventually, Ghodsee earned tenure, released a book and her daughter started school, so her life got less stressful.
A few years later, when she is meeting up with Lisa to go to a restaurant, she overhears her arguing with her husband.
““… Please, Bill. It’ll be embarrassing.” “No. You’ve spent enough money this month. I’ll give you the card again after the statement rolls.” “But I shopped for the house and bought clothes for the girls. I didn’t buy anything for me.””
After this, they go to a restaurant, Lisa lies about what she was arguing with her husband about and starts drinking wine. Ghodsee is uncomfortable and offers to pay for dinner, to which Lisa says “Thanks. I’ll fuck him tonight and pay you back tomorrow.”
This was meant to be a tale of the dangers of being economically dependant on your husband, but it feels as though she is attacking women’s choice to be stay-at-home mothers. Say for example Lisa divorced her husband, and started working full-time, she has to pay for extremely expensive childcare. Not everyone has that option. The story's message seems to be if you work really hard it'll pay off, and if you stay home with your kids you'll be trapped.
“All of the labor she performs caring for their children, organizing their lives, and managing their home is invisible as far as the market is concerned. Lisa receives no wages and contributes no funds toward her own social security in old age. She accumulates no work experience and creates a black hole on her résumé, one that will require explaining away if she ever hopes to rejoin the labor force. She even accesses medical care through her husband’s employer. Everything she has she derives from Bill’s income, and he can deny her access to their joint credit cards at will.”
This is a place in the book where I wish there was a better conclusion to end with, I thought there would be focus on the system and how it disadvantages mothers, and places them in the difficult position of having to work, pay for childcare and manage a home, or stay at home and be dependant on their husbands. Instead Ghodsee says she swore to never be in Lisa's position.
There’s a lot of interesting ideas here that don't really go anywhere, I was hoping things would tie together and have a good conclusion, so I was disappointed. Especially because she talks a lot about the interconnecting problems that neoliberalism causes.
The idea of capitalism being thought of as the only option, similar to the ideas expressed in Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism:
"The erasure of socialist ideas from serious political discourse throughout most of my life wasn’t a historical fluke. The West’s victory in the Cold War—liberal democracy for everyone!—came at the price of iconoclasm, much of it celebratory.… So communism was killed, and along with it went any discussion of socialism and Marxism. This was the world of my childhood and adolescence, full of establishment progressives who were aggressively centrist and just as willing as conservatives to privilege the interests of capital over those of labor: think of the reckless expansion of so-called free trade, or the brutal military-industrial complex. For most of my life, I would have been hard-pressed to define capitalism, because in the news and in my textbooks, no other ways of organizing an economy were even acknowledged. I didn’t know that there could be an alternative."
The topic of "sexual economics theory" from a socialist perspective was very interesting to me, particularly because these ideas are often used by sexist men online as proof that women are "inherently gold-diggers".
There are studies that show that men and women prioritise different traits when looking for a partner: men generally focus more on looks and youth than women do; and women focus more on wealth than men do. These studies are used as proof that women are "hypergamous sluts" "incapable of real love!!" etc on some parts of the internet.
Other people theorise it's because women's own ability to earn is lower than men's, they're at a disadvantage and marrying up is a means to a better life which is otherwise unavailable.
"[after the collapse of the USSR] The commodification of women’s sexuality in Russia could be observed in the dramatic increase in sex work, pornography, strategic marriages for money, and what the authors call “sponsorship,” whereby wealthy men sponsor their mistresses. According to Temkina and Zdravomyslova, this instrumental script was “very seldom found in the narratives of sexual life” of the older women who grew up in the Soviet Union."
Ok next I just find some of the writing off-putting, like this:
“As if directly responding to the Western stereotype of Eastern Bloc women as tired, fat, and ugly, the East Germans included a whole chapter on “Women, Socialism, Beauty and Love,” complete with stylized black-and-white nude photographs of gorgeous models baring their perky breasts for the cause.”
just kind of gross and objectifying to me.
Here's a subject that warrants it's own book:
“the skyrocketing incidence of depression and anxiety are the negative externalities of a system that reduces human worth to its exchange value”
Just another random quote I found interesting:
"Researchers asked respondents in Hungary and the United States: “If a woman wants to have a child as a single parent but she doesn’t want to have a stable relationship with a man, do you approve or disapprove?” Only 8 percent of the Hungarians said they “disapproved,” compared to 56 percent of Americans, demonstrating a much more liberal attitude toward single mothers and women’s independence in the state socialist country."
OK, so firstly I think about a book about socialism shouldn’t refer to Sweden and Finland as “socialist countries”. They’re social democracies - they're still capitalist countries. In comparison to the US, they're much to the further left of the political spectrum, but I think it's strange to use the Soviet Union and Sweden as your main examples of "socialism" - they don't have that much in common.
This is stated at the start of the book:
“Throughout this book, I use the term “state socialism” or “state socialist” to refer to the states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union dominated by ruling Communist Parties where political freedoms were curtailed. I use the term “democratic socialism” or “democratic socialist” to refer to countries where socialist principles are championed by parties that compete in free and fair elections and where political rights are maintained.“
In part of the book, the writer, Kristen R. Ghodsee, talks about a friend of hers, who decided to be a stay-at-home mother. Whilst Ghodsee was working towards tenure as a working mother, her friend Lisa was spending her free time reading novels and exercising whilst her children napped (just to make it sound like being a stay-at-home mom is fun and luxurious).
Eventually, Ghodsee earned tenure, released a book and her daughter started school, so her life got less stressful.
A few years later, when she is meeting up with Lisa to go to a restaurant, she overhears her arguing with her husband.
““… Please, Bill. It’ll be embarrassing.” “No. You’ve spent enough money this month. I’ll give you the card again after the statement rolls.” “But I shopped for the house and bought clothes for the girls. I didn’t buy anything for me.””
After this, they go to a restaurant, Lisa lies about what she was arguing with her husband about and starts drinking wine. Ghodsee is uncomfortable and offers to pay for dinner, to which Lisa says “Thanks. I’ll fuck him tonight and pay you back tomorrow.”
This was meant to be a tale of the dangers of being economically dependant on your husband, but it feels as though she is attacking women’s choice to be stay-at-home mothers. Say for example Lisa divorced her husband, and started working full-time, she has to pay for extremely expensive childcare. Not everyone has that option. The story's message seems to be if you work really hard it'll pay off, and if you stay home with your kids you'll be trapped.
“All of the labor she performs caring for their children, organizing their lives, and managing their home is invisible as far as the market is concerned. Lisa receives no wages and contributes no funds toward her own social security in old age. She accumulates no work experience and creates a black hole on her résumé, one that will require explaining away if she ever hopes to rejoin the labor force. She even accesses medical care through her husband’s employer. Everything she has she derives from Bill’s income, and he can deny her access to their joint credit cards at will.”
This is a place in the book where I wish there was a better conclusion to end with, I thought there would be focus on the system and how it disadvantages mothers, and places them in the difficult position of having to work, pay for childcare and manage a home, or stay at home and be dependant on their husbands. Instead Ghodsee says she swore to never be in Lisa's position.
There’s a lot of interesting ideas here that don't really go anywhere, I was hoping things would tie together and have a good conclusion, so I was disappointed. Especially because she talks a lot about the interconnecting problems that neoliberalism causes.
The idea of capitalism being thought of as the only option, similar to the ideas expressed in Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism:
"The erasure of socialist ideas from serious political discourse throughout most of my life wasn’t a historical fluke. The West’s victory in the Cold War—liberal democracy for everyone!—came at the price of iconoclasm, much of it celebratory.… So communism was killed, and along with it went any discussion of socialism and Marxism. This was the world of my childhood and adolescence, full of establishment progressives who were aggressively centrist and just as willing as conservatives to privilege the interests of capital over those of labor: think of the reckless expansion of so-called free trade, or the brutal military-industrial complex. For most of my life, I would have been hard-pressed to define capitalism, because in the news and in my textbooks, no other ways of organizing an economy were even acknowledged. I didn’t know that there could be an alternative."
The topic of "sexual economics theory" from a socialist perspective was very interesting to me, particularly because these ideas are often used by sexist men online as proof that women are "inherently gold-diggers".
There are studies that show that men and women prioritise different traits when looking for a partner: men generally focus more on looks and youth than women do; and women focus more on wealth than men do. These studies are used as proof that women are "hypergamous sluts" "incapable of real love!!" etc on some parts of the internet.
Other people theorise it's because women's own ability to earn is lower than men's, they're at a disadvantage and marrying up is a means to a better life which is otherwise unavailable.
"[after the collapse of the USSR] The commodification of women’s sexuality in Russia could be observed in the dramatic increase in sex work, pornography, strategic marriages for money, and what the authors call “sponsorship,” whereby wealthy men sponsor their mistresses. According to Temkina and Zdravomyslova, this instrumental script was “very seldom found in the narratives of sexual life” of the older women who grew up in the Soviet Union."
Ok next I just find some of the writing off-putting, like this:
“As if directly responding to the Western stereotype of Eastern Bloc women as tired, fat, and ugly, the East Germans included a whole chapter on “Women, Socialism, Beauty and Love,” complete with stylized black-and-white nude photographs of gorgeous models baring their perky breasts for the cause.”
just kind of gross and objectifying to me.
Here's a subject that warrants it's own book:
“the skyrocketing incidence of depression and anxiety are the negative externalities of a system that reduces human worth to its exchange value”
Just another random quote I found interesting:
"Researchers asked respondents in Hungary and the United States: “If a woman wants to have a child as a single parent but she doesn’t want to have a stable relationship with a man, do you approve or disapprove?” Only 8 percent of the Hungarians said they “disapproved,” compared to 56 percent of Americans, demonstrating a much more liberal attitude toward single mothers and women’s independence in the state socialist country."
March 26, 2021
Всегда не понимала вот этих, прости господи, "цепляющих заголовков", но книжка хорошая. И разумеется попала в точку с ключевой темой про статистическое неравенство. Если не триггериться на слова "при коммунизме" или "при капитализме" основательно разложена проблема гендерного неравенства на работе: особенно добавило мне аргументов для диалога о работающих матерях, декретах и мнимой социальной поддержке. Вообще, мне очень повезло, так как моя компания намного выше многих других в эволюционном развитии с точки зрения гендерного равенства. Но как бы то ни было, выше - это если измерять от нуля и в сравнении. Ни о каком сохранении текущих позиций для женщин, уходящих в декрет даже на 3-4 месяца речи до сих пор нет. Всегда могут предложить более ЛУТШИЕ варианты, но это навязанный решения компаний. И, разумеется, реальная профессиональная конкуренция в таких условиях невозможна, о чём рассказывает Годси. Я готова подписаться под каждым этим словом, кроме того, что при социализме и коммунизме - всё было иначе. Теоретически, да, технически вряд ли. Но отрицать вклад социализма в образование женщин и перераспределение части профессиональной деятельности тоже не стану. Только автор делает акцент на новых возможностях для женщин, а я бы сказала о дополнительной нагрузке, хотя и действительно возможной, в условиях коммунизма. Понравилось, что довольно мало воды, а аргументы не выхвачены из какого-то глобального дискурса, а основываются на практических и массовых примерах. Короче, гляжусь в тебя, как в зеркало)
November 1, 2021
The book raises some interesting points and I do agree with most of the stands, both on capitalism and feminism. However, the writing bothered me so much I almost couldn’t finish the book. It gives me very rich white buzzfeed-activism vibes. On the very first page, the author starts out by calling sexists “right-wing internet trolls who live in their parents basement”. I cannot help but find this cringey and classist. Further in the book, Ghodsee calls her friend’s ex-wife a “gold digger” and a “bimbo”, which I find a deplorable choice, especially given the context. I also hated her take on “sexual economics” where she completely ignores how the overwhelming reality of sexual violence affects sexual relationships.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 7, 2024
this book could not have been a more appropriate book after trump winning a second term.
January 9, 2022
Nepochybne inšpiratívne a ľahké intelektuálne čítanie, ktoré je však väčšmi angažovanou ľavicovou esejou povzbudzujúcou mileniálky a mileniálov v boji za väčšiu sociálnu spravodlivosť a proti (americkému) republikánskemu konzervativizmu, než historickým pojednaním o rovnocennejšom postavení žien v krajinách štátneho socializmu pred rokom 1989.
Práve tu kniha trochu pokrivkáva, hoci autorka si je vlastných zjednodušení dobre vedomá a sama hneď v úvode zdôrazňuje, že nejde o vedeckú publikáciu.
Z tohto hľadiska oceňujem predslov Kateřiny Liškovej aj bohatý poznámkový aparát, ktoré čítanie knihy významne rozširujú.
Práve tu kniha trochu pokrivkáva, hoci autorka si je vlastných zjednodušení dobre vedomá a sama hneď v úvode zdôrazňuje, že nejde o vedeckú publikáciu.
Z tohto hľadiska oceňujem predslov Kateřiny Liškovej aj bohatý poznámkový aparát, ktoré čítanie knihy významne rozširujú.
February 17, 2022
I literally could not put this book down. It lays out just about everything I have ever tried to tell anyone about anything relation to socialism, leftist thought, economic freedom, etc., etc., etc.
I mean, yes, the author is a bit more of a Social Democrat and/or Democratic Socialist than I would like - more people should just go hard-core left, at this point...but, I'll let it slide because her points are so valid.
I want to say 1,000,000 things about what's in this book - but, I more want you to read it.
I mean, yes, the author is a bit more of a Social Democrat and/or Democratic Socialist than I would like - more people should just go hard-core left, at this point...but, I'll let it slide because her points are so valid.
I want to say 1,000,000 things about what's in this book - but, I more want you to read it.
October 25, 2022
Bik maldinošs nosaukums, grāmatas centrā ir ekonomiskas attiecības, konkrēti tās, kas skar sievieti. Nepārzinu tik labi ASV ekonomiku, bet autorei ir visai rožains skatījums uz dzīvi sociālismā. Ja salīdzina ar ASV, protams, ir aspekti, kas bijušajās sociālisma valstīs bija labāki attiecībā uz sievieti un viņas lomu darba tirgū. Tomēr minēt Čaušešku Rumāniju vai Živkova Bulgāriju kā pozitīvus piemērus sieviešu līdztiesībā ir stipri pārspīlēti. Kopumā interesanta grāmata, kas pēta seksu kā ekonomikas sastāvdaļu (un ne tikai runājot par prostitūciju).
December 21, 2020
“Socialista pero no mucho”
Supongo que no puedes esperar mucho más de alguien estadounidense.
Supongo que no puedes esperar mucho más de alguien estadounidense.
July 17, 2019
An academic wrote this book. Geez. It is full of bad errors and not honest comparisons. Look away of every statistic that contradict you. You don’t compare of what you think is worst with capitalism with that what you think is best with communism. The values are skewed as well. Equity is for the author better than freedom, of course then when equity is achieved the author will believe it will save everything including sex. Freedom be damned because equity is achieved by giving people the blessing of less choice(meaning: choosing for them). Of course she thinks this gives freedom(but freedom IS choice), because when people don’t need to choose they are free for more sex. And work. Somehow this is very important. Women should be forced into work, because their choice of staying home is wrong. The sex argument is based on bad science, but also a misconception of capitalism. Never trust a socialist description of capitalism! Sex, she thinks, is in capitalism only a commodity making women slaves to be bought. No, sex is not only a commodity of value - but in the case when used as it, the women had all the power - to choose what to get with it. At least it was readable so that the laughs were many and not buried behind obscure writing. She also acknowledges the bads of communism, but somehow millions of dead does not matter in order to give it another try. And yes, this is not the best review, but honestly I found it not worth a more structured and thoughtful disassembly. Read Cathy Jones review in Reason for that.
July 8, 2021
The title of this book is a little misleading. It’s about how women benefit economically and socially in countries that are more socialist in politics or are social democracies with strong safety nets. The author makes a strong case that capitalism does not support feminism and the progress of women. I enjoyed this book and recommend it. I do have one small reservation. I listened to the Audible version. The narrator speaks with a British accent, while the author is American by birth. A little distracting but ultimately no big deal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,181 reviews