What about trans women?
Seems like the soviet government was more responsive than contemporary western governments, but not as much as east Germany: https://artsmatter.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2025/01/28/trans-visibility-in-the-late-soviet-union/#%3A~%3Atext=First%2C+they+became+visible%2C+at%2Crecognized+as+ordinary+Soviet+citizens.
Yeah because working outside and still doing all the domestic work is so much better than being confined to the house. Who needs feminism?
No doubt the Soviet Union was a huge step forward for women but this is just a dumb thing to say. Women doing unpaid household labour and emotional labour has always been the case.
The USSR was also the first country on a large scale to move unpaid domestic labour into the paid socialized sector: it created communal kitchens, communal child-care, all paid for by the state. The PRC followed that same model.
How are you liberals this ignorant of these attempts? Marxist feminists started the domestic labor debate, and were the only ones who attempted to put solutions into practice.
You don’t need all of these communal things if a family simply raises their kids in a traditional way. What you’re describing is the commoditization of the nuclear family. It’s roundabout and worse overall. No one will love your kids and care for them like you will. Also the state pays for nothing because the state makes no money. It comes from the labor of the people. So really the mom is forced into the workforce to pay for childcare. Lol.
Hello I have one nuclear family to sell in the form of watching their child for a few hours. I am also in the market to buy. I also buy them by watching their kids.
The word I use for that is commoditization. That’s what it means.
Thank you.
Yeah exactly. Mom is going to work to pay for someone to watch her kids when she could just do it herself.
So you just woke up from your mother’s womb today and experienced the concepts of ‘division of labor’ and ‘commerce’ for the first time, huh?
Removed by mod
The reason I’m ‘ignoring’ your point is because you’re a fucking moron acting in bad faith. You took the existence of child care as a state service and morphed it in your mind palace to mean parents aren’t raising their children anymore.
And ‘forced’ to go to work? Are you a fucking child? Work is how food and shelter happens literally everywhere they exist and in every possible economic system. Your ‘point’ is saying normal things in a scary voice. So the only productive way to engage with you is through mockery and insults. Because you’re fucking stupid, buddy.
Because the former Soviet Union, with all its defects, never gave much of a shit about gender roles, you are going to learn science even if it takes your whole life. I guess some of that cultured stayed after Ussr collapsed
Women were supposed to perform all the domestic labour. All of it. That myth of liberated soviet woman shatters the second you learn about any aspect of the soviet existance.
30 years later, and I still can’t convince my mom that doing all the domestic work and be toe-to-toe with men in a workplace isn’t something all women are just have to do.They very much cared about gender roles, but also pretty early figured out that women in the workforce are economically beneficial. So the situation was (and unfortunately is) that women are shamed if they don’t earn money OR don’t look good OR don’t cook/clean/care about children. I am honestly fascinated how average woman manages these three shifts. In academia btw there’s still a huge gender bias even when women make the majority of students and generally perform better.
Yes and also everyone is supposed to work if they can (ideally). No mooching under socialism.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Doubles the workforceRemoves the artificial societal limit that arbitrarily cuts the workforce in halfFTFY
Tad rude to refer to children as “artificial limitations”
You can raise children while both parents are working. Billions of families do it every day. Especially if you also get rid of the notion that raising children is mostly a mother’s job while the father is free to drink beer and watch TV after work.
Way to turn the communist acheivement of women’s empowerment into something negative.
I literally said it’s a positive thing, just that motivation of people in power is cynical. Also I didn’t mention communism, I meant it in general regardless of regime
If like every bog-standard anticommunist, you’re going to impute cynical motives on every objectively good thing communists do, we’re not going to take you seriously.
Both of these things are good.
Maybe a bad choice of words on my part, maybe I should write “not because it’s right, but because it doubles the workforce”
Although whether “double the workforce” is good or bad, I’d keep that for a discussion, see my other comment for more info: https://lemmy.world/comment/16185467
Yeah, and no fault divorce keeps the workforce happier and reduces domestic violence (meaning less injured and killed workers), abortion on demand makes it easier for people to continue working, and socializing former domestic labor improves the efficiency of that work and frees up labor for leisure or other labor, but those things are still good and part of the socialist feminist project.
Are you trying to imply doubling the available workforce is not good? Its usually a good thing. While their motivations are cynical, those leaders are doing good.
…or are you trying to imply that keeping women out of the traditional work force (by only allowing them to work unpaid in the home in domestic servitude, labor that capital does not value) increases the value of male labor through scarcity, which would be preferred?
Sorry that second question kind of reads as an attack. A shitty coworker of mine said that to me unironically and tried to play it off as a joke when I pushed back.
It would be nice if one salary, no matter the gender of the breadwinner, could sustain a family.
We shouldn’t have to work to sustain a family, this idea is archaic.
I think this inherently accepts the narrative that the work women were doing before had no or little value.
That care and emotional labour should not fall solely on women and we should all have the opportunity to partake in meaningful work but we shouldn’t accept having to accept less time for care (and leisure) on some trumped up definition of what’s productive/economic or not.
As labor is further socialized (basically centralizing and then running itself without capitalist intervention) you end up having labor done by men and women and women still being responsible for more domestic duties which are labor but not considered labor(because those being done for free subsidizes capitalist profit) the solution though isn’t to keep women in the household, it is to do socialism, where domestic labor can be socialized (it isn’t under capitalism because why would you socialize labor you’re already getting for free?)
It doesn’t matter to me whether the man or woman has the job, what matters to me is that one working person could support a family, kids, owning a home, some vacations and still had enough money to save up and be generally not very concerned with finances.
Sorry for late response and I see the comment is now deleted by a mod but whatever (well we’re on .ml after all).
What I was trying to point out, was the “cynical” part of it. That people in power often don’t do it because they want to empower women or help people, more often than not it’s just that it brings more people into their “meat grinder” - regardless of the regime. In case of capitalism it’s obvious but it doesn’t need to be money necessarily; in the case of Stalin - pardon me if I don’t believe that he did it for “supporting women rights and making the world a better place ✌️”, he did it for the raw economic power to compete with US during cold war and so his own country wouldn’t collapse because of his stupid actions.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate. I deliberately didn’t want to say anything in that area, I’m just saying that the motivation of people in power is cynical, not saying if result is good or bad.
But if you’d want my personal stance - I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t. Even though my country sort of supports it, my pay would cut dramatically and we as a family wouldn’t be able to survive.
But honestly thank you for asking. It’s very refreshing to meet a person who asks and tries to understand the motivation of the commenter rather than jumping right to the conclusion (as almost every other response here)
I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work. And I do believe that there are more important things in life than working. I’d love to be a stay at home dad, but I can’t.
Being a stay at home dad is work. Raising children is necessary work that capitalism requires, because it requires laborers. We have engineered a system in which this work is uncompensated, and if you gender this work, it causes gendered oppression.
I will also point out that in America we have decided that unless you have a “job”, society has decided that you pretty much don’t deserve health care. Anyone who chooses a life of domestic labor in America puts themselves in a position where they are financially dependent on their spouse and their spouse’s employment status. It doesn’t have to be this way. We have forged these chains.
Whether doubling the workforce is a good thing - that I’d keep up for a debate.
If we had more workers, it could be that we wouldn’t need those workers to work as long. Earlier retirement, shorter work weeks, whatever. The issue is not the size of the work force, the issue is what is chosen to be done with it.
Thank you, mods, for protecting us from different opinions and discussion.
Stalin
The right for women to work wasn’t instituted by Stalin’s government. Women were granted equal rights by the Bolsheviks in the revolution. It is worth noting that, before the revolution, workers had longer workdays, and letting more people into the workforce allowed for less working hours.
Regarding their motivations - their goal was to bring about communism, and they believed that, to achieve this, the working class had to be united, and thus that women and men should be equal.
I do believe that in order to achieve welfare/prosperity, not all the people have to work.
A large fraction of the labour done in the present-day is excess. It is possible to meet every person’s needs with less work in total. If the workload required was distributed equitably, people would have more time outside of their jobs.
Removed by mod
That’s not what the science says btw. If you go to Russia and ask old people about how they feel about the USSR, they are significantly more likely to have favourable views of the USSR than young people who didn’t experience it. If you are interested, you can also look at Generational and Geographic Effects on Collective Memory of the USSR.
Old people in Russia will not remember the Stalin era, but the Khrushchev era (the post-gulag era, famous for de-stalinization) and the Brezhnev era. Old people also tend to romatisize their youth. And romatisizing the Soviet Union is mixed with ethno-nationalism in current days Russia.
I consider myself a socialist, but stalinism is dog-shit.
The world owes Stalin and the people of the USSR a debt that can never be repaid for being the only country to try to stop Nazi Germany before the war and the country which bore the brunt of the casualties and hardship.
Any “socialist” who shit talks them is suspicious as fuck in my book, chauvinist at the very best and probably a snitch.
Khrushchev was an opportunist piece of shit and the world would have been better if he had been kicked out of the party.
Oh yes. The only country. the people who stood up and fought for their independence from that murderous shit hole just were brain washed by all those western capitalist comforts and luxuries. Ups sorry no they were even worse off with the capitalists because they really were enslaved and unhappy and taken advantage of.
but alas at least they chose. Socialists chose for you. If you don’t like the choice fuck off to the gulag.
The soviets saved the world, but Stalin was a monster ntl.
You’re joking, right? Never heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Funny fact: all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France? The one that was signed after Stalin’s pleas for an alliance against Hitler’s Germany fell on deaf ears because Western powers were still dreaming that Germany would attack the USSR first and succeed where they’d failed immediately after the 1917 revolution? That one?
Historically illiterate westerners read a single fucking line and memorize it and think that’s an earth-shattering gotcha like we haven’t seen your cookie cutter shit a hundred times. Serious socialists who actually read history can contextualize history, and I’ll repeat it: fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it’s barely notch above outright holocaust denial.
all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
Back up your claims with a serious source. I’m sure such a comically extraordinary claim will have hard evidence behind it and not just a vibe.
You do know that the USSR signed a trade deal with Nazi Germany even in 1940, right? When the rest of the world was already blockading Nazi Germany for… being Nazi’s. In fact, in 1940 the Soviet Union delivered about 75% of Nazi Germany’s imports, mostly in oil & steel. Stalin could’ve joined that blockade, and not supplied the necessary materials for the Nazi war maschine – but he didn’t.
You can acknowledge that, and still acknowledge the USSR took the brunt of the force fighting the Nazi’s. It’s not a sports game, you don’t have to pick sides.
Check Wikipedia/Хронология советской цензуры and references 45 and 46 there. I don’t particularly like mixing here several topics together as interchangeable statements: soviet people sacrificed greatly to stop the nazi aggression. Stalin is another great woe of soviet people. Stalin was very much on the same page with nazis when it came to dividing the territories, bad that the leopard ate his face.
Checks out with what I have heard, when I lived in a city of the former East Germany
Sure. People like to romanticize the past and the Wiedervereinigung was a shitty process that fucked many people over. But it is nice, not to live in a Planwirtschaft, to travel to other german cities without being shot at or running through mine fields and not to have a quarter of your neighbourhood spy on you to be brought to one of the Stasi torture prisons for not being socialist enough.
Wow, that sounds horrible, I bet there were a lot of prosecutions of the people who carried those things out once the government reunified!
Oh, and the physical evidence and documentation of those torture dungeons after the wall fell, there must be so much evidence of all the horrors committed!
And all the violence the evil communist government must have done to keep itself in power and prevent reunification must have been really evident, I bet we can find newspaper clippings and even video on the widespread violence that happened in an effort to hold on to power.
Wait, I’m getting reports that none of those things actually happened, fuck. It would have lined up so nicely with the narrative taught to me by American education and popular media, that’s a real bummer.
Who needs evidence when you have it repeated in so many western movies?
Wow, your education system really has failed you.
Please link me to sources then.
https://www.bundesarchiv.de/en/stasi-records-archive/
Mate it’s right there.
I won’t deny the scientific studies.
I am speaking from personal and family experience
I used to live in Chemnitz, and that’s exactly what o have done, the answers were not as I expected, most people said that, one or two things were better, the quality of life generali has gotten worse.
Removed by mod
I don’t think communism and ussr were saints free of all sin but on the other side of the coin I also think there is a lot of things about communism that were made up to make it look worse than it was, I mean capitalism did some propaganda. I used to live in a city that was formerly East Germany and I did ask around what people remember what it was like and what they thought was better, and most of them said they preferred the old system, one or two things are better now but the general quality of life now is worse. Me, being Portuguese, and therefor bombarded with capitalist propaganda since birth was completely 🤯
100% this. Im from Russia and I have heard many horrible stories from older relatives about previous generations and life under the USSR. Life is definitely shitty now, but it’s still better than those years
Is this a meme ?
Mysagony: the Silant Killar
Yes, there are many women working at science institutes in post-soviet countries. As lab technicians with extremely low wages. There are almost no women directors or women lab heads. These are all men. In Russia, women occupy majority of work places in education and, yes, science. But mostly as low-paying teachers and lab technicians. There are of course exceptions. But this post doesn’t really show the reality and gives false idea about women experiences in soviet and then post-soviet countries.
Edited to say that I know it’s in memes, but I just got triggered…
Ah, right! This is among the reasons why Russia has the lowest share of seats held by women in politics (won’t go into business) in Europe (Statista).
Removed by mod
“Mysagonist” misogynist… Typo or am I missing a joke about agony under Stalin?
Nothing makes you feel agony quite like free healthcare and education.
Removed by mod
libtard
Removed by mod
