Why women have better sex under socialism
By: Abbey Heffer
Tags: Equality, Socialism, Feminism, Sex, Women

Financially independent women make better choices

The basic premise of this book is that a financially independent woman will have more control over her life choices, more time to assert her independence and therefore make decisions about romantic partners based on compatibility rather than economic necessity.

In an equal relationship, both partners are equally invested in pleasing the other. In a relationship where the woman is financially dependent upon a male breadwinner, she must please him in order to survive. And this is not only bad for her, but also for him:

“Our system also places a massive burden on men, since those who cannot afford to support their spouses are shunned as romantic partners.” Kristen R. Ghodsee

The male breadwinner model that conservatives are so keen to preserve harms us all.

In order for women to become truly financially independent, however, there needs to be an overhaul of the “market forces” which currently control who gets hired and why. In a labour market where women still, even in the most progressive region in the world, earn 16% less than men for the same work, men will continually be pushed to be breadwinners and women to into subservient domestic roles.

Ghodsee’s solution to this dilemma is quotas. The debate around whether or not governments should legally enforce gender quotas in order to get more women into professional leadership positions can get quite heated.

When explaining why the US performs so badly in terms of women in government when pitted against socialist countries like Cuba — the global leader — or democratic socialist countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, Ghodsee argues that the reason is quotas. And she has the empirical evidence to back it up.

“Why the difference? One word: Quotas.” Kristen R. Ghodsee

Quotas for diversification are a necessary evil; without them you end up like the US, which just about a managed to get women into 19% of elected positions in 2015. Compared to Sweden’s 44%, Norway’s 40% or Iceland’s incredible 48%, the US is lagging far behind. Quotas are necessary to reset the balance, until a time comes when they make themselves redundant.

That’s the whole point of quotas, that one day they work themselves out of a job. They’re not meant to be permanent, nor are they an attempt at “reverse sexism” (still not a thing)!

The same logic applies to private sector positions too. More women in management means more women in charge of deciding who gets hired and promoted within a company.

When advertising an open position, most companies will expect to interview a potential candidate. It is common knowledge that establishing a personal connection with an interviewer is hugely important. The laws of human relations mean that having something in common with your interviewer makes you far more likely to connect with them.

The shared experience of being socialised as male, racialised as white and (generally) growing up middle class helps more white, male middle-class men up the career ladder —to the detriment of anyone who falls outside of this socially dominant category.