#5
Kommersant
March 7, 2002
Natalia Pushkareva: "I tried to return "history to women and women to history."
Unlike in the West, feminism in Russia emerged at a much later date
By Liza Novikova
(therussianissues.com)

The "Ladomir" Publishing House in Moscow has just released Natalia Pushkareva's book The Russian Woman: History and Modern Times. A History of Studying the 'Woman Question' in Russian and foreign science. 1800-200 In the interview, Natalia Pushkareva admits that she tried to return "history to women and women to history."

In the past, the image of the Russian woman was formed by various attributes - recklessness, aggressiveness, women's rebellions, striptease, etc. Has the image of the Russian woman changed since then? How does the woman of today differ from that of the "Soviet" woman or women of previous historical epochs?

If there is anything that the Russian women of today have in common with those of the past, it is traditional social activity. However, this activity is in no way superficial nor was it "borrowed" from the West. This social activity has deep historical roots: it is something that they have endured throughout their entire history. Arbitrarily speaking, "the Russian woman has always been considered chaste." But I think that this is disputable. It would be erroneous to say that this was a national characteristic and that those women who behaved otherwise were not worthy of being considered the national ideal. There was a whole multitude of different models of behavior.

I believe that the Russian woman was influenced by both Orthodox morals and the peculiarities of our legal system. After all, beginning in the 10th century, women in Russia had the right to divorce, something that women did not have in the West. She also had the right to own her own property when she was married. This was also typical of Russia and unusual in the West (where everything was family property).

Then why did feminism not take root in Russia? They struggled and struggled, and then gave up?

Unlike in other countries, the question of women in Russia was usually brought up by men - Granovsky, Pirogov, Sechenov, and the journalist Mikhailov, whose article "The Ideal Woman" was read to tatters. However, the first women's organizations appeared in Russia only at the beginning of the 19th century, whereas the roots of feminism in the West first became visible back in the 16th century.

The Bolsheviks took a very prejudiced attitude towards women's organizations: there could be no women's interests that differed from men's interests! The peculiar feature of Russian feminism is seen precisely in the fact that our feminists never placed themselves in opposition to men's organizations.

Women don't only shape politics when they are speaking from the rostrum...

Personally, I have always been interested in the forms of how women indirectly participate in politics, i.e., how women can influence politics without actually standing at the helm. This is where we run into considerably more intrigues and interesting twists.

On the whole, our society is very conservative. For example, nothing in Russia has been "modernized" in respect to women. On the contrary, what we can speak about here is a renaissance of the patriarchy. That is precisely why our society took such a categorical attitude against Raisa Gorbachev.

In fact, our women themselves did not want to see such successful women emerging in their ranks. For example, Raisa Gorbachev did not even make an attempt to continue her professional activity, as for example, was done by Hillary Clinton. The wife of the former American president managed to achieve a great deal even after her husband left the White House precisely because she remained independent. The contemporary women's movement in the West gives the green light to people like this. Perhaps, we will also have such brilliant personalities soon - and they will be able to speak out in defense of our democratic interests without betraying their gender.

But the more we orient our girls to become cute Barbies for their husbands, the fewer political "stars" and active women politicians we shall have. But so far, our efforts in bringing up our young women follow traditional interests. Unfortunately, the Church is also working in that direction: we do not need active women; a woman should marry and give birth to children. But what should women who don't marry and decide raise children alone do? These women immediately find themselves outside society's framework.

Similarly, women who strive for professional success are condemned. They are seen as the same kind of outsiders as men who are conscientious objectors.

Did you draw upon popular TV soap operas for material for your book?

Of course, but those programs also have their limits. For instance, those soap operas don't really bring up the question concerning the insignificant role of women in contemporary politics. They do not raise the question of why women fail to break through the 5% barrier of votes received in elections.

Television prefers to construct a traditional female image: "whether her husband has left her or not," that is what is discussed. When women get together to say they disagree with the policy that men are pursuing, nothing is shown on a single channel. They invite Zhirinovsky to programs devoted to feminism, and instead of a serious discussion, the program turns into a comedy hour.

BACK TO THE TOP    #196 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION