Just Finished Reading: Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism And Other Arguments for Economic Independence by Kristen R Ghodsee (FP: 2018) [177pp] 

Written in response to questions raised by her 2017 New York Times article ‘Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism’ this is a very interesting a rather thought provoking read. Naturally the title itself was hard to ignore – I'm guessing that it’ll be by far the best title of the year – but it is far more than a catchy title. The author was travelling in Europe just as the Wall came down and decided to see what things were *really* like in the East. Interviewing academics and ‘ordinary’ people across Europe – not only in pre-Soviet countries but across Scandanavia and the UK too – laid the foundations for her PhD and informed her feminist critique of unrestrained and unregulated Capitalism. 

One of the things that became clear to her (and has been clear to me for a while now) is that not only does Capitalism treat women differently from men but that it generally treats them worse than their male counterparts. Generally under Capitalism, women are paid less, hold lower status jobs, undertake far more part-time and temporary work, do far more unpaid care work for children, the sick and the elderly and so on. Until very recently, women have been considered very much as second class citizens (if as citizens at all) and treated accordingly. Taken all together this has resulted in women having a much lower economic ‘value’ than men, overall less spending power and, again overall, less power of any kind. This has resulted in what a 2004 research article [Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions] called sexual economics or sexual exchange theory where women ‘sell’ sex to ensure or enhance their economic standards to men who can ‘provide’ for them. In other words, women use a resource that they have and that men want – sex – to purchase security because of their relative poverty in other respects. Although somewhat shocking (indeed crass) said out loud like that I think there’s a lot to it. I’ve long thought that ‘modern’ relationships seem far more nakedly transactional (pun intended!) than they used to be or, indeed, should be. I’m also aware of the unapologetic ‘trading up’ that some women do to get a higher status male partner and to enjoy a better lifestyle. If that’s not sexual economics I don’t know what it is. 

During the Soviet era in the East, as well as in present day Scandinavia and other left leaning societies, the impact of sexual economics was, and is, much reduced. With access to Higher education, laws to ensure more equal pay, easier (often free) access to health care like contraception, abortion, pregnancy and birth care, often subsidized childcare, maternity (and paternity) leave, return to work guarantees and much else besides, the general underlying foundation of sexual economics becomes untenable. Sex is no longer a marketable commodity and because there is no longer a price tag attached (for either party) is freely given as part of a loving relationship. Non-transactional sex is less baggage laden. It’s simply better under Socialism. 

This was, to be honest, a FUN read. The author has certainly done her research and, as a socialist myself, I think she made her case pretty well. The only issue I had with any of her arguments was the idea of quotas for the filling of corporate posts with a significant percentage being allocated to women. I’m not a fan of the quota system for a host of reasons. I can see why she proposed this idea – as a short cut – but I prefer the more difficult path of ensuring that women are educated enough, experienced enough and good enough to fill those roles themselves – without the fear of being discriminated against because of their sex or gender. Definitely recommended for anyone interested in politics, economics or women's issues.