A fascinating piece appeared on August 19 in the New York Times, a timeless organ of outrageousness that never ceases to amaze with its ideological asininity. I’m tempted to say that this piece is beyond the pale even for the Times, but that bar long ago was set unsurpassably high. Still, this piece is another stunner, one that deserves attention if only to appreciate the depths of the left’s ideological perversity. But beyond that, it merits our attention so we can know what leftists are up to in their mis-education of children in government schools and their unconscionably expensive universities.
Titled, “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism,” the piece made me think of Malcolm Muggeridge’s description of communism as “unresisting imbecility.” So it goes for the left’s infatuation with communism/socialism (words that communists and socialists frequently use interchangeably). It is unresisting imbecility. The author of the article is a University of Pennsylvania professor, who I’ll leave unnamed in order to try to avoid my sharp and sarcastic criticisms being too personal. (Besides, like communism/socialism, so many of these leftist professors are frequently interchangeable.)
“When Americans think of Communism in Eastern Europe, they imagine travel restrictions, bleak landscapes of gray concrete, miserable men and women languishing in long lines to shop in empty markets and security services snooping on the private lives of citizens,” begins the Ivy League professor, in a statement of the obvious. “While much of this was true, our collective stereotype of Communist life does not tell the whole story.”
And what is this wondrous rest-of-the-story? I confess that I, too, think of bleakness and misery when it comes to an ideology whose greatest achievement is 100 million dead. What beauty am I missing? The professor supplied an answer, courtesy of a hefty platform at the venerable Times: “Some might remember that Eastern bloc women enjoyed many rights and privileges unknown in liberal democracies at the time.”
Did they now? We’ve forgotten? And what were these “rights” and “privileges”? Surely they did not include freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and property — to name but a few?
No, those rights obviously didn’t exist. But look at what these ladies did have, the professor informs us: These “rights” and “privileges” for the female masses included “major state investments in their education and training, their full incorporation into the labor force, generous maternity leave allowances and guaranteed free child care.” And that’s just the tip of the Siberian iceberg: “But there’s one advantage that has received little attention,” claims the professor. “Women under Communism enjoyed more sexual pleasure.”
Whoa. Even Joe McCarthy would be taken aback by that one. Say that again, comrade?
The Penn professor cited a “comparative sociological study of East and West Germans conducted after reunification in 1990” that found that Eastern Bloc women allegedly had “twice as many orgasms” as Western women. (One must marvel at the methodology for that study.) The professor noted that West German women might have had the benefits of a “roaring capitalist economy. But they had less sex, and less satisfying sex, than women who had to line up for toilet paper.”
The professor quoted a Bulgarian woman she interviewed for her book, a woman who slaved for over four decades under communism: “Sure, some things were bad during that time, but my life was full of romance. After my divorce, I had my job and my salary, and I didn’t need a man to support me. I could do as I pleased.”
If you’re a liberal, and especially a feminist, this is a great thing.
The professor gave other examples of sexually satisfied commie women. She also (accurately, I must add) underscored these crucial early roots of the Bolshevik state: “After the Bolshevik takeover, Vladimir Lenin and Aleksandra Kollontai enabled a sexual revolution in the early years of the Soviet Union.”