Russia feminism history

Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 15 Марта 2013 в 07:52, реферат

Описание работы

Not until the Gorbachev years (1985–1991) does one witness the emergence of informal associations and the nascent development of nongovernmental associations. The brief era known as perestroika gave birth to a number of new organizations. Those organizations created in the late 1980s, which continued into the post-Soviet era, are included in Part III of this volume since they are viewed as part of the transition to the new Russia.

Скачать архив (68.93 Кб) Сколько стоит заказать работу?

Файлы: 1 файл

Russia feminism history.doc

— 128.50 Кб (Скачать файл)

PART II

WOMEN’S MOVEMENTS IN THE SOVIET ERA, 1917–1991

Although the Soviet Era (1917–1991) lasted over seventy years, it produced fewer and less varied Russian women’s movements than either the Tsarist Era or the Transitional and Post-Soviet Eras (1985–).

The goal of the Soviet leadership over the years was to direct societal development into prescribed directions. Although there were women’s organizations and women’s efforts, especially early in the Soviet era, homogenization during the Stalin era erased most of the diversity of the efforts. In the post-Stalin period, there were a few notable developments, such as the creation of the zhensovety (women’s councils) in the Khrushchev years and the incipient, but crushed, dissident women’s movements in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) in the Brezhnev years.

Despite limitations imposed by the Soviet government and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the movements, actors, and organizations of the Soviet period have a character of their own and are no less interesting than those that came before or after. The special attention given to mobilizing women at selected periods within the Soviet era reflects ways in which the Soviet government made use of women’s talents and energy to implement some of its goals. The mobilization of women to assist in the improvement of social conditions took various forms, each important and unique in its time and place.

Although formally committed to equality of men and women from its earliest days, the Soviet government fell short of making women’s equality a reality.

-125-

Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com

Publication Information: Book Title: Encyclopedia of Russian Women's Movements. Contributors: Norma Corigliano Noonan - editor, Carol Nechemias - editor. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Publication Year: 2001. Page Number: 125.

PART III

WOMEN’S MOVEMENTS IN THE TRANSITIONAL AND POST-SOVIET ERAS, 1985–

The transitional period in modern Russia, which began with Perestroika in 1985 in the Soviet Union and continued in the independent Russian Federation after 1991, has been a tumultuous era by any measure. On the one hand, it opened opportunities for women to form associations and movements never before possible in their history. On the other hand, the transition took a harsh toll on the entire population, most especially on women. The new conditions created by glasnost and Perestroika and their aftermath allowed women to form and develop new organizations outside the strict control of the CPSU. At the same time, restructuring hit women hard, as social policies designed to aid women to combine work and motherhood eroded and as the ideological framework that women belong primarily at home gained ground. Women disproportionately made up the unemployed and suffered discrimination in a workplace that perceived men as more performance-oriented. The mass media turned women into sex objects, and there was an explosion of sexually explicit material in Russian society. On the political front women’s representation in the State Duma has declined with each of the elections held since 1993, and few women served in high-level executive positions in the 1990s.

Despite these setbacks, women demonstrated increased activism by creating new women’s organizations. In the final decades of communist rule the Soviet state provided two avenues for women’s activism: the zhensovety (women’s councils) and the Komitet Sovetskikh zhenshchin (Soviet Women’s Committee). By 1998 about 600 independent, nongovernmental women’s organizations had

-195-

Introduction: Russian Women’s Movements of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

This relatively brief volume encompasses almost 200 years but with special focus on developments since 1985. During the past two centuries, Russian women’s movements have taken many forms. There is no single Russian women’s movement, either past or present. In the 1990s, in particular, with new opportunities to create nongovernmental associations, one finds an abundance of women’s movements, moving in diverse and sometimes even opposite directions.

In organizing this volume, we identified three distinct periods: the nineteenth century and early twentieth century prior to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 (Part I); the Soviet period, 1917–1991 (Part II); and the transitional era and post-Soviet movements, 1985–) (Part III). Wherever a movement or person transcended or encompassed more than one period, we used our judgment as to the best placement of the entry. A number of developments that began during Perestroika (1985–1991) but continued and evolved in the post-Soviet era have been placed into Part III.

In selecting entries for inclusion, we used a rather comprehensive definition of women’s movements. Any group that purported to support or advance improvements in the status of women was included. Individuals who advanced the status of women in some way, even if they personally were not directly involved in women’s movements, were considered for inclusion.

In our desire to create an encyclopedia of Russian women’s movements, we recognized that one could not possibly cover all existing organizations. Some selectivity was necessary in choosing organizations, and some omissions have occurred, however carefully we tried to include all significant groups.

Because of the extensive published works on women in pre-1917 Russia, the work does not cover all possible groups or individual women. With a rare exception, the coverage begins with the late nineteenth century. For both prerevolutionary Russia and the Soviet era, we included important groups, while recognizing that, because of space constraints, we were not fully comprehensive. Also, entries on some famous historic figures may seem shorter than justified,

-xi-

Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 09:18 AM by ensho

http://counterpunch.com/shamir03082011.html

As some countries celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, we present here on the CounterPunch site a previously unpublished Wikileaks cable on women’s rights in Russia, signed by the current U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, John Beyrle, a career foreign service officer who assumed his present post in 2008. He had served two previous tours in the Moscow embassy.

Categorized as “sensitive” and “not for publication”, Beyrle’s cable affords an interesting insight on Russian sisterhood. The Russian women had full equal rights in the Soviet days, says the US Ambassador, and even now Russia has the most liberal laws on gender equality. The gap between men and women’s wages is just about 15 percent, as opposed to 35 per cent in the US. Russia does not know sex harassment cases; women are bothered all right, but they do not complain. A young student inquired incredulously: "Is it really true, that in an American office, a man cannot touch a woman, or else she will take him to court?" She added that perhaps the woman might find the attention pleasing. Indeed, the Russian women are fighting for their right not to pursue a career and would rather stay home.

We also learn from the Wiki cable that since the fall of Soviet socialist model accompanied by de-industrialization, men’s lot took a sharp turn for worse: men commit suicides in droves, and men’s life expectancy is a full 12 years shorter than that of women. With the advent of capitalism, many women believed in the Cinderella dream of marrying a rich man; now only 5 per cent stick to this hope. Russian women want to be beautiful and they put a lot of effort into it, including wearing quite provocative dresses even to their workplace. The Ambassador noted that “feminism” is a dirty word in Russia; none admit to it.

-snip of the cable that had 11 of the 12 sections-

12. (SBU) Many Russian women seek the same rights as women in other countries, such as safety from domestic violence and the right to equal pay for equal work. However, the context in which they attempt to assert those rights differs considerably from that in the Western context. As they often find themselves fulfilling both traditional male and traditional female roles, while men are either nowhere to be found or are incapacitated and/or abusive, Russian women are focusing more on simple survival than on organizing a Russian version of the National Organization for Women. Until demographic trends in Russia change, the social dynamic between the genders in Russia will continue to discourage women from taking the time, energy, or initiative to publicly stand up for their rights in a manner similar to Western feminists.

-----------------------------------------

Don’t call her a feminist

April 6, 2010
Svetlana Smetanina, Russia Now

Call a Russian woman a “feminist” and she will most likely take umbrage, or at least start making excuses

What can you do — feminism in the Western sense has yet to take root on Russian soil. Women who openly call themselves “feminists” arouse the pity (at best) of most of their compatriots. They see these strident women as unfulfilled in their personal lives and bent on revenging themselves on men for their unhappiness.

To the casual Western observer Russia gives the impression of a male-dominated country. It seems that here all decisions are made by the men, who are always running around, making a lot of noise and competing with each other to see who’s cooler. But drop in on that “macho” man at home and you will be literally stunned to see how obediently, if not obsequiously, he behaves with his wife: “Yes, darling. Of course, darling. Whatever you say, darling.” In 8 out of 10 cases, that is exactly what you will find.

Incidentally, foreign travelers in Russia often noted this public side of relations between man and wife (apparently no one ever invited them home). Journeying through Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries, they made notes about the hard life of Russian women — uneducated and forgotten, locked away in tower chambers behind high walls by their cruel husbands. What a horror.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Monomakh, a Grand Prince of Kievan Rus, exhorted his sons in his famous Instruction: “Love your wife, but do not let her have the upper hand.” Apparently, even for princely progeny in the 12th century the danger of becoming a hen-pecked husband was real.

True, Russia’s foreign observers varied. The notorious Italian adventurer Casanova, who by force of nature consorted closely with women in different countries, had this to say about Russia in the 18th century: “It seems that Russia is a country where the sexes have become confused. Women govern, women preside at the meetings of scholarly societies, women take part in administration and diplomacy. The one thing this country is missing, the one privilege not accorded these lovely ladies is that of heading an army.”

Of course, the idea of fighting for the equal rights of women did not bypass Russia altogether. In the latter half of the 19th century, the idea came to Russia from Europe along with the increasingly strong revolutionary movement. The revolutionaries openly declared that the Woman Question was for them one of the most important; that may be why so many women took part in the Russian Revolution.

After the Bolsheviks came to power women got the green light. As Vladimir Lenin put it: “Any cook-maid should be able to run the government.” What the leader of the proletariat meant, of course, was that members of the most forgotten strata of society would come to power. But in his famous phrase, he referred to a clearly female “cook-maid”, as opposed to a clearly male “chef”. In the Soviet Union there was no discrimination on the basis of sex — female labor was paid the same wage for the same work as male labor. And in order to “break free” a working woman did not forsake her family duties, the state guaranteed her many social benefits, including long paid maternity leaves and subsidies for children. Those “echoes” of socialism are still alive in the post-Soviet Russia of today. According to a recent report by the World Bank on Women, Business and the Law — 2010, women in Russia have more socio-economic and labor security than in the United States and in many countries in Europe. For instance, a working woman in Russia is entitled to 140 days of paid maternity leave plus 540 days of unpaid leave.

Therefore when Russian women are told that they should fight for their rights, they sincerely do not understand what people are talking about since they do not feel discriminated against as compared to their husbands. The “favorite” complaint of Russian women about their husbands is that they are weak. “There are no more strong men, we have to do everything ourselves,” the successful businesswoman will lament at the least opportunity. But I promise you, if some trusting man takes that unhappy career lady at her word and tries to tell her what to do, she will cut him right down to size.

This has been the situation for a long time. Russia has always been a country of strong women. Read a few Russian folktales and you will be well versed in important aspects of our national character. Vasilisa the Wise, a beautiful princess, is always helping her beloved and saving him from certain death; his name is Ivanushka the Little Fool. Russian literature, too, is all about this: while the weak man rushes about not knowing what to do or how, the woman calmly takes responsibility for her fate.

As for feminism in Russia, former State Duma deputy and presidential candidate Irina Khakamada was recently asked what she thought about it. One of Russia’s best known and most successful women, she said: “I’m a post-feminist. A woman who isn’t fighting for her rights, who isn’t trying to prove anything, and for whom men are for happiness. Like a fast car or a beautiful watch. Because everything else — making money, having children and bringing them up — I can do myself.”

Of course, comparing the significance of a man in a woman’s life to a car or a watch looks a little insulting to the former. But perhaps this is the height of feminism — woman’s independence. Let men make us happy, and we’ll do everything else ourselves.

Tags: women lifestyle

Current ratio: 2.4 (13 voted)

The woman's and rights protection movements: Do we have the same way?

by Ludmila Zavadskaya

The peculiarity of the present moment in the development of the Russian third sector is the lack of any meaty ties between public movements of different kinds. If ecological and rights protection movements get in touch in a way then the women's movement stands apart though it is evident that finding common grounds will do everyone good. But are there such common grounds? Where are they? The head of the Women's Rights Protection Program of the American Lawyers Association ponders over this question.

To understand the core of the deep gap, which one can see between the woman's and rights protection movements, one should turn to the history of their development in Soviet years. The rights protection movement, which protects civil rights and freedoms, appeared and grew stronger as an opposition to the Soviet regime, struggling with it. Restructuring of the Soviet Union when the government began to take slogans of the rights protection movement into consideration can be regarded as its victory. The history of the women's movement is quite different.

In Soviet years before the 90th there was no women's movement as such. Of course, there were some women who supported and advocated ideas of feminism. They advanced their own slogans, had their own values but they were regarded among dissident circles. Feminists were met extremely rarely. They didn't join any underground organizations unlike the rights protection movement. And official women's organizations believed that everything concerning the "woman's question" was all right and sex equality had been achieved. So I underline once again the fact that the women's and rights protection movements are not connected historically. The sources of their coming into being are absolutely different.

Another question is whether there are any common grounds for bringing them nearer and what they are. To my mind the clue to this bringing nearer may be, first of all, struggle with discrimination, because any discrimination - faith, race, nationality, and sex - is a political matter. Few people know and remember that in 1980 the Soviet Union signed the Convention "elimination of all forms of woman's discrimination". The then women's organizations didn't read the document, which was published only in 100 copies. But just in this document the question about political, civil and social rights was brought up. But what is more important they said about the violation of the sex equality principle. Observance of the equality principle is a political question and it would be logical if rights protection organizations take it into consideration. But, unfortunately, they have never made a note of the problem.

The second common ground, where the women's and rights protection organizations can unite, is the problem of women's rights. This question was not always brought up in such a way. The fact is that women are not just half of the mankind but they need specific rights connected with their reproductive function. These rights must also be a part of human rights. That is why when we speak about human rights we mean some universal standards directed not only to men but also to both sexes. So there must be not one standard but two ones in documents concerning human rights, since just only so we can secure gender equality and human rights - both of men and women.

Where is it necessary to introduce these two standards? To my mind only in the social sphere where the maternity question arises. And we can admit the difference in standards only within a very short period. Maternity must have to do with an infancy period, and it mustn't stretch up to the woman's pension. A woman must have these specific rights just before and after the parturient period. Then the parenthood, that is motherhood and fatherhood, and from this moment common standards come into effect - both for women and men. I'd like to emphasize the fact that a woman must have some unique rights within a very short period connected with the child's birth. All other standards must be unified for both sexes if we don't want to make a social invalid of a woman. Taking this stand, I regard the women's earlier retirement as a violation of their rights. Since a pension is lower than a salary so this is a direct evidence of discrimination. And aren't sex and age discriminations a question for rights protection organizations?

I repeat the word "discrimination" because I think it is a key word - it must unite both woman's and rights protection movements. The point is not whose rights are violated - men's or women's ones but that human rights are violated. To give the exact definition of the word "discrimination" we should refer to the article of the first Convention "About elimination of all kinds of woman's discrimination". Discrimination is understood as "any sex difference, exception or restriction, which is directed to weakening or brings to nought women's acknowledgement, use and realization, on the basis of men's and women's equality, of rights and main freedoms in all spheres - social, political, economic, family ones and so on".

Just difference doesn't mean discrimination. Discrimination appears when the difference brings to nought universally accepted standards of human rights. Sex discrimination is more often in the labour sphere when everywhere the right for equal admission to employment and equal employment opportunities are violated. We can also speak about women's discrimination in the sphere of political rights.

Political rights are fundamental basic human rights that allow citizens to asset their other rights. In Russia equal suffrage for men and women was established in the 1918 Constitution and in the Declaration of Rights of Working Exploited People. So for more than 80 years a unified standard has been in effect in the sphere of political rights in our country. But what can we see today? We see that the representation of women in all political bodies is ten times smaller than that of men. So it is appropriate to introduce here an idea of "equal opportunities". Having the constitutional principle of equality, equal rights, established in electoral legislation, women don't have equal opportunities to be represented in any political body. It is very important to remove the stress from equality of rights to equality of opportunities. Men and women in our country have different opportunities. And according to the Constitution they must have equal opportunities.

Where does the difference appear? First of all, in the fact that a woman carries all burden of housework and work connected with maternity. According to sociological polls housework occupies one third of all woman's time. What is free time? This is a opportunity for personality development. That is why feminists say that women must have equal opportunities not only at work but also in the family at home. House duties must be redistributed between men and women. So that the latter have some free time.

But let's return to the question of woman's discrimination in the sphere of political rights. I know many women who would like to change the situation using political methods, but they have no opportunity to come to power. Neither political parties nor official bodies nor oligarchs support them. These are mainly women of mature age, women whose children have already grown up and family and life problems are not so keen for them. So what prevents them from coming to power? First of all, culture and traditions of our society. Whatever they say about equal rights, our society regards a woman, first of all, in the family, as a part of the family. The Russian society is patriarchal in its essence. The image of a woman-mother, a mother-heroine was not created incidentally. In many cases a woman parliamentarian, a woman politician are rejected because of patriarchal ideas of not even the government but the society itself. Why does the number of women in organs of state power constantly decrease though women are highly qualified and ready to be in power? I think that women's rights are violated by the society itself. The society doesn't want to see and is unable to see in a woman the standard that must exist for both sexes. A power figure is a figure dressed in a man's suit. The more influence the big-stick policy and militarization of our consciousness have the more evident the fact is. This is the first reason. The reason that should be stressed is how people come to power in general. People come to power through political institutions of the society, we mean, first of all, political parties. Parties are the channels supplying organs of state power with people. But women have no opportunity to be schooled in party leadership because there are no real parties. Look at the parties in power at the federal level: PDP, "Fatherland", "Unity party" - all of them appeared out of nothing six months before regular elections. And they couldn't give women an opportunity to perfect their political skills. The number of women in political parties is very small - 2%. From where do people appear in party lists, which consist of 98% men? The answer is quite simple - they come from organs of power, 90% of which are men. Thus people come to power without "attending" the school of civil society, and then they form so-called "parties" out of the same organs. Everything is turned inside out! That is why when I am told: "let's follow the recommendations of the inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the UNO and put forward women through party lists," I answer that there are no party system in our country. Formally there is this system but actually it is not formed yet. Until we don't understand that power is a part of the state and a party is a part of the society, until we don't make efforts to form real parties, reflecting real interest of the society, this channel will be ineffective for women to advance to levels of taking decisions and to organs of state power.

Информация о работе Russia feminism history