• WeedReference420 [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I still remember some terrible article that was like, "The Soviet Union coerced women into becoming Scientists and Doctors"

      When you're trying to Red Scare so hard you go full STEM MRA

      • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I've took my time to find the article despite the paywall, read it and I still don't understand what they meant by "coerced into scientific careers".

        • WeedReference420 [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I appreciate the effort on your part - it's a trash article however you look at it - and I wish I could even attempt an explanation but all I can think of is an attempt at a mega lib twisting of words, what a mess

          • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I read it in autumn, I think, when people started memeing it on reddit. The best interpretation I've managed to come up with is the fact that in the Soviet Union after finishing college graduates were assigned a relevant job often in distant parts of the country where their expertise was needed the most and were expected to work there for a couple of years. This, coupled with fact that you could not just be a housewife or decide to fuck around and start a band or something without having a day job, may be wrangled as being "coerced" into a scientific career.

        • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I'm pretty sure you need to have some severe brain damage to "understand" that dumpsterfire of an article.

    • Nakoichi [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I hate that there's definitely some dumb fuck libs probably making that exact argument right now totally unironically.

  • cummunist [he/him,they/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    yeah it's easy to have 48.9% women in parliament when you FORCE THEM at GUNPOINT to participate in political life as citizens and exerce their right to democracy and representation

    • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Reminds me of the Economist article about women of Warsaw Pact countries being forced into careers of science and engeneering.

      • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        That really gives away the game of who's coming up with this propaganda. The American right wing was saying that about the ERA in the 70s too.

  • HKBFG [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Reddit is currently discussing why equal representation and a longer life expectancy are somehow bad things.

  • pigpoopballs [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    It's over half now actually, 53.22% of those elected in the 2018 election are women.

  • buh [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Women hold up half the sky

  • Superduperthx [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    You know another country that ranks high on that list? Rwanda, because of the genocide. Checkmate gommies, the left wants to #KillAllMen.

  • YoungMarxBans [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Serious-posting time: what's wrong with the Cuban electoral system (not referring to electing women!). I did a report on it my senior year of highschool and basically all I could find from various sources was that it was a pretty great system and that the only complaint was Castro was in power for too long – which some sources presented as an example of him being a dictator, but I thought that was merely the consequence of a system where the executive is appointed and there aren't term limits, that one person would tend towards power through social relations with other powerful people. Is that a bad thing? Personally, I'm not sure, but it does seem like a system that is potentially open to abuse.

    • unperson [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Last year they split the position of President of the Council of Ministers into the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister and limited the President of the Republic to two consecutive 5-year terms.

      To draft the constitution they took hundred of thousands of proposals from the people in the local assemblies, coalesced them into 9595 similar proposals and voted on all of them in the local, provintial and national assemblies. The majority of the cuban people participated in the drafting of the constitution, and the final draft was subjected to a popular vote and received 86,85% approval. The term limit proposal was the most popular one.

      http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2018/12/21/cuales-son-los-principales-cambios-en-el-proyecto-de-constitucion/

      • YoungMarxBans [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Cool, wasn't aware of the new constitution rules. How is the PM chosen?

        • unperson [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          It's designated by the National Assembly. The proposal to make the President of the Republic directly electable like in a bourgeois republic did not get through the deliberation phase.

      • YoungMarxBans [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        It definitely seems that way on the ground and with the local power councils.

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          This is something I feel specifically Americans can't wrap their head around. The idea that the president of a country is actually checked directly by the democratic power of the people.

          That there can be a system where going to your local town hall meetings can directly effect policy beyond who gets their sidewalks re-paved first. A system where the people are actively involved in the governmental process and not just passive bystanders that get a chance to choose between 2 owners once every couple years.

    • Azarova [they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Somewhat related, there was an amazing Proles of the Round Table episode (#39) where a guy who spent some time in Cuba, I think as a part of study abroad program, talks about modern Cuba and there are parts where he talks about the drafting of the new constitution and how people vote and all that.

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          No gay marriage sucks, but at least there have been constitutional protections in place since '79. The party is still openly working on how to shift public opinion and get it passed.

          Meanwhile, they also (correctly) decided that sex reassignment surgery is a public health matter back in '08 and made it free to anyone who needs it.