fbpx
01 / 05
The Shocking Sexism of Central Planning

Blog Post | Gender Equality

The Shocking Sexism of Central Planning

Communist factories failed to manufacture even the most basic items for women.

The 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution has brought with it much whitewashing of history. Perhaps the most absurd example of this whitewashing is a New York Times piece claiming that women in the Communist bloc “enjoyed many rights and privileges unknown in liberal democracies at the time.”

The reality of centrally planned economics is shockingly sexist, no matter how much lip service was paid to gender equality. When there is no market incentive to fulfill human needs, it is women’s needs that are forgotten first.

Communist factories failed to manufacture even the most basic items for women. “In all these years, communism has not been able to produce a simple sanitary napkin, a bare necessity for women,” writes Slavenka Draculić. In How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed, she chronicles the everyday indignities suffered by women in Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany and her native Yugoslavia. Ordinary women’s sanitary products became sought-after items on the black market and most women made do with improvised substitutes.

The economic planners diverted resources away from producing anything considered feminine, and therefore frivolous and bourgeois. As Draculić puts it, in “central plans made by men, of course there was no place for such trivia as cosmetics.” Women often sewed their own clothes or improvised beauty products from kitchen items, even though anyone who looked too nice was “subject to suspicion, sometimes even investigation.”

Most women owned identical clothes because stores offered no variety. At one point, it seemed like half of the women in Warsaw had spontaneously opted to dye their hair the same garish shade of red. It was the only dye the chemical factories produced. Whether in Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, Sofia or East Berlin, women shared the same complaint: “There are no deodorants, perfumes, sometimes even no soap or toothpaste… Worst of all, there are no sanitary napkins. What can one say except that it is humiliating?”

Communist women were expected both to work outside the home and to do all the housework as well. (Engels thought it was “insane” for men to do chores; homemaking “unsexes the man”). As managers of the household, women felt the shortages’ sting first and it fell to them to find substitutes for everyday goods. There was a severe lack of food, baby formula, housing, and just about everything else.

The state provided housing by repeatedly dividing up existing apartments and assigning strangers to live together in ever-shrinking spaces, as described in Joseph Brodsky’s essay, “In a Room and a Half.” Bathrooms could double as kitchens (shared by multiple families) and crawl-spaces could count as bedrooms sleeping multiple people. The state provided childcare, but the waiting list was often long. The state guaranteed women jobs, but there could be a shortage of those too. In Yugoslavia the average wait time for a job was three years.

In the 1950s, Yugoslavia’s government planners declared toilet paper to be an unnecessary luxury item and commanded that factories stop producing it. For years the people made do with newspapers (shortages never slowed the printing of propaganda). Other declared “luxuries” included women’s hats, gloves, washing powder, children’s toys, milk, and meat. “The general rule was that anything at any time could be proclaimed a luxury,” notes Draculić. Anything for women was particularly at risk.

An American visiting the Communist Bloc in the 1980s would be aghast to find most women still doing laundry the way they had in the United States 50 years prior, without washing machines. Throughout the Communist Bloc countries, women often soaked clothes in metal tubs, scrubbed them bent over the tubs’ rims using washboards, then boiled them on stovetops, stirring the clothes with long spoons.

The elaborate ritual took up a whole day each weekend, and left their hands swollen, cracked and covered in sores. There were no rubber gloves to protect their skin – the economic planners saw no need to sell any. The male planners had likely never done the “women’s work” of laundry.

Shortages of laundry detergent were endemic throughout the communist countries. A woman in Sofia told Draculić, “When I find it, I buy two or three big boxes. You can never be sure when it will appear again.” She had never even heard of a clothes dryer. Of course, even if there had been washing machines and dryers, the frequent electricity outages would have made them unreliable.

The communist system didn’t produce machines to make women’s lives easier for the same reason it neglected their other needs and wants. For all the complaints about the profit motive, markets incentivize people to satisfy each other’s preferences through voluntary exchange, while state-run economies provide no such incentive. There is no shortage of soaring communist rhetoric on gender equality, but that cannot make up for the pervasive and sexist shortages under central planning.

This first appeared in CapX.

Wall Street Journal | Housing

California Ditches Environmental Law to Tackle Housing Crisis

“California lawmakers on Monday night rolled back one of the most stringent environmental laws in the country, after Gov. Gavin Newsom muscled through the effort in a dramatic move to combat the state’s affordability crisis.

The Democratic governor—widely viewed as a 2028 presidential contender—made passage of two bills addressing an acute housing shortage a condition of his signing the 2025-2026 budget. A cornerstone of the legislation reins in the California Environmental Quality Act, which for more than a half-century has been used by opponents to block almost any kind of development project…

The California Environmental Quality Act was signed into law in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, at a time when Republicans were at the forefront of the nation’s burgeoning green movement. President Richard Nixon also signed groundbreaking protections, including the Endangered Species Act.

CEQA, as it is known, requires state and local agencies to review environmental impacts of planned projects and to take action to avoid or lower any negative effects. Opponents of projects have used the law to delay them by years.”

From Wall Street Journal.

Good News Network | Natural Disasters

California’s First Wildfire-Resistant Neighborhood

“One of the nation’s largest homebuilders have created a community of entirely wildfire-resilient homes to help reduce homebuyers’ risks of loss if another Palisades or Dixie fire comes roaring by.

With nothing flammable on the exterior or the roofs and curated desert foliage around the gardens and lawns, the homes aren’t necessarily fireproof, but the design of the entire community was informed by identifying and eliminating the most common causes of homes catching fire.

Available now, and with some already off the market, KB Homes estimates their price at around $1 million, a price consistent with disaster-proof housing around the country.”

From Good News Network.

KVUE | Housing

Austin to Allow Some Apartments to Have Only One Staircase

“On Thursday [4/10/25], Austin City Council members approved a change to building codes that will soon allow apartments up to five stories tall to be built with only one staircase.

The change is set to begin on July 10, after a resolution to the city’s building technical codes was introduced in 2024. Councilmember José ‘Chito’ Vela said the units would include advanced sprinkler systems and protected stairwells.”

From KVUE.

Blog Post | Housing

US Housing Abundance Has Increased Dramatically

Compared to the early 1970s, we get 74 percent more square feet of housing per person, per percent of household income.

Summary: Over the past 50 years, Americans have seen a dramatic increase in housing quality and space. While housing costs appear to have risen, today’s homes offer more value per dollar. We can see this by adjusting for household size and improvements like air conditioning, garages, and extra bathrooms. We now get more housing for the same share of income.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts consumer expenditure surveys, collecting data on a wide variety of products and services.

Over the past 50 years, the percentage of household income spent on food fell 30 percent, and spending on clothing has dropped by 64.9 percent, yet housing costs have increased by 12.1 percent. What explains this rise? At least six key differences between homes in the early 1970s and in 2023 help account for the change:

  1. Size: The average home in 1972 measured 1,634 square feet, compared to 2,614 square feet in 2023—a 60 percent increase (980 additional square feet).
  2. Household Size: Average household size declined from 3.06 persons in 1972 to 2.51 in 2023, an 18 percent decrease. We’re buying more house per person.

In 1972, the average living space per person was 534 square feet; by 2023, it had nearly doubled to 1,041.4 square feet. In terms of affordability, one percent of household income bought 23.95 square feet of housing in 1972, compared to 41.66 square feet in 2023. We’re getting 74 percent more housing per person for the same share of income.

Four other factors also help explain the difference:

  1. Air Conditioning: In 1971, only 36 percent of homes had central air; by 2023, that number had reached 99.4 percent.
  2. Garages: The share of homes with garages rose from 59.8 percent in 1971 to 97.3 percent in 2023.
  3. Bedrooms: In 1971, only 24.6 percent of homes had four or more bedrooms; in 2023, 50.2 percent did.
  4. Bathrooms: The percentage of homes with 2.5 or more bathrooms increased from 16.3 percent in 1971 to 67 percent in 2023.

After adjusting for increased square footage and smaller household size, the share of household income spent on housing falls to 14.3 percent. If we further account for improvements—such as the addition of air conditioning, garages, extra bedrooms, and bathrooms—a modest 25 percent quality adjustment brings the rate closer to 10.7 percent. In effect, we’re now spending less than half as much of our household income on basic housing compared to the early 1970s.

We also see this phenomenon clearly when comparing automobiles from the early 1970s to those of today. While both have four wheels, modern cars deliver vastly superior fuel efficiency, comfort, safety, reliability, and performance.

The real question is: how much would someone have to pay you to trade your 2023 home and 2023 car for their 1972 counterparts?

Tip of the Hat: Jeremy Horpendahl

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.