Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

In Simone de Beauvoir’s account, the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. is a prominent example of women’s access to political institutions after the Russian Revolution, but not proof that equality had been achieved in daily life. A 1939 tally recorded 227 women in the union-level legislature, set within a broader pattern of female participation in soviets, unions, and paid work. The contrast between that public presence and women’s continuing domestic responsibilities gives the figure its significance.

Political Representation

The Supreme Soviet appears in a set of figures describing women’s participation in Soviet public life. In the 1939 general elections, 457,000 women were elected to regional, district, town, and village soviets; 1,480 served in the higher soviets of the socialist republics; and 227 sat in the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. The numbers distinguish representation at different levels, placing the union legislature at the apex of an extensive network of elected bodies.

This institutional presence followed the revolutionary period in which women took part in the October insurrection and, between 1918 and 1920, contributed economically and militarily to the Soviet struggle against invading forces. Simone de Beauvoir connects this history with the Soviet commitment, associated with Vladimir Lenin, to women’s political and economic equality. The Supreme Soviet’s female membership thus registers a political change, while remaining only one part of a wider transformation.

Representation and Paid Work

The legislature’s 227 women belonged to a society in which women’s participation in organized work was also substantial. Nearly 10 million women belonged to unions, and women made up 40 percent of Soviet workers and employees. They worked in fields where male employment was dominant, including metallurgy, mining, timber rafting, and railways; some also served as pilots and parachutists or joined partisan armies during the war.

These details matter because Simone de Beauvoir treats political participation and productive work as connected dimensions of women’s public standing. In her account, the ability to enter production and to acquire political importance challenges women’s historical exclusion from shaping the world. But the scale of employment and representation does not by itself settle who performs the work that sustains family life.

The Limits of Formal Equality

The discussion of the Supreme Soviet sits beside a more qualified assessment of Soviet women’s circumstances. Laws and policies had at different points supported free unions, liberalized divorce, legalized abortion, maternity leave, child-care centers, and kindergartens. Such measures were presented as ways to lessen domestic constraints and women’s dependence on men.

The direction of policy later changed as the state prioritized repopulation. The family was again treated as the elementary social unit, while women were expected to be both workers and housekeepers. Abortion was banned under laws of June 1936 and June 7, 1941, divorce was almost suppressed, and sexual morality became stricter. The coexistence of these policies with women’s seats in the Supreme Soviet exposes the gap between formal political inclusion and control over family and reproductive life.

Significance in the Account

The Supreme Soviet’s representation figures lend specificity to Simone de Beauvoir’s account of Soviet women’s achievements without making them a final verdict on equality. Women entered public institutions and production in large numbers, but their circumstances remained shaped by state policy and by the persistent allocation of childcare and housework to women. The institution therefore marks a real opening in political life, while the surrounding evidence warns that public rights and economic participation do not automatically redistribute domestic labor or secure personal freedom.