ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 4 ( 2015/2 ) |
WOMEN AND PUBLIC LIFE IN SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET RUSSIA
CHUKA CHUKWUBE*
Summary
In an attempt to correctly x-ray women
and their public life in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, there are many salient
points and questions that must be asked and answered. It is important to ascertain the level of perception
of feminism in Russian population. What
rights do women have in Soviet Union and post-soviet era? What is the percentage of women workforce in
the two periods under review? How
passive or active are Russian women? Their position in many national issues and policy making in the country;
their attitude to violence and war especially in the 1920s; how have Russian
women fared under increased cases of male domestic violence against them, etc.?
In order to address these issues, the
work is divided into different sub-headings with the first chapter giving a
general overview of the position of women during the Soviet era. The work gives good assessment of successes
and failures of women’s organization.
Keywords: Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, women, working women, women in politics, women's organizations.
Russian
Women in Soviet Era
With the enthronement of Socialism in
1917, the Soviet State propagated equal opportunity for both sexes. This extends to education, right to vote and
be voted for in any election, right to equal pay at work. The state was also mindful of maternity leave
and maternity benefits for women which was improved from 1936. The state also extended interest to marriage
and made it a civil union. Women were
given legal backing to either obey or disobey their husbands and could easily
obtain divorce. This was possible till
1936 and again after 1968. Abortion was
legalized form 1923 but later made illegal once again from 1936 to 1955. Nursing mothers made use of the Kindergartens
where they could leave their children and go to work and collect them at the
end of the day’s work.
Although all these rights were well
spelt out by the state, in reality, they were rarely obtainable. There was disparity between wages by women
and their male counterpart. Averagely,
women earned two-thirds of male wages (Sacks 1976; Lapidus, 1978, McAuley,
1981). In a bid to level up political disparity between men and women who were
considered to be politically backwards, Zhenotdel, a women department of the
Communist Party, was created in 1920 primarily to mobilize and educate them politically. Zhenotdel had a wide spread throughout the
Soviet Union and to boost awareness especially to the remotest parts of the
country, women’s clubs were also created. Women’s clubs in the Muslim areas of the Central Asia and in the
Caucasus aimed at liberating women and to teach them the skills of literacy
(Marsell, 1974; Akiner 1997). The
positive result of Zhenotdel and women’s clubs was far reaching but was
unfortunately closed down in 1930 when it was presumed that women had been
fully integrated into socio-political life of the country. However, the activities of the women’s clubs
persisted in the rural areas and wives movements were formed in towns and in
some state farms. As a result of the
extinction of the Zhenotdel, women’s councils known as Zhensovety were
formed. The Zhensovety was created by
Khrushchev after he realized that women had started developing interest in
politics and that there was need to further encourage them into taking
political posts. The Zhensovety was
given a revival in the 1980s when Gorbachev decided to accommodate them into
the Soviet Women’s committee (SWC). While counting on the advantages of both Zhenotdel, the Zhensovety and
the Soviet Women’s Committee, it is imperative to say that women under these
groups were rubber stamps to decisions taken by the government. Only very few women had had the opportunity
of rising to high political positions. From the period of enthronement of the Communist Party of Soviet Union
in 1917 to the post-Soviet era, only three women had sat in the Politburo,
which was the highest decision making body of the party. They were Ekaterina Furtseva (1957-60) under
Khrushchev; Aleksandra Biryokova (1988-90) and Galina Semenova (1990-1), both
served during the period of Gorbachev. They were equally not noticeable at the Council of Ministers. It is only at the lower levels that handful
of women were politically viable.
However, the quota basis representation
formula of Soviets made women participation in politics inevitable. They made up about 33 percent of the USSR
Supreme Soviet, 36 percent of republican level Supreme Soviets and 50 percent
of local Soviets (White, Pravda, Gitelman, 1997). This representation, however, represents
women participation in government but not in power as the decision making body
of the government did not lie with the Soviets.
With the introduction of Glasnost, the state of affairs attracted
the attention of some influential women who decried the situation and called
its reverse. Notable among such women
was Larisa Kuznetsova, a prominent journalist who vehemently criticized the
situation where only five women delegates were allowed to make speeches at the
19th Party Conference when there were over 1,250 delegates present
at the conference. She was quick to
observe that women were gradually being edged out by their men
counterpart. Kuznetsova maintained that
women should be given higher representation especially in policy making bodies
of the party and government. She also
stated that more incentives and encouragement must be given to women to enable
them effectively participate in government. Other notable critics of women’s position in government are Zoya Pukhova
who was then the Chair-lady of Soviet Women’s Committee and Philosopher Olga
Veronina. Pukhova questioned why women
made up only 7 percent of Party Secretaries in regional and territorial
committee when 29 percent of policy members were women. Olga Veronina held the opinion that ‘men have
created the world for themselves’ (Buckley, 1989).
Apart from women, some notable Russian
men-folk added their voices in urging the government to guarantee more
participation of women in government affairs. At the 19th Party Conference in 1985, Gorbachev pointed out
that the women’s movement was “at a standstill” and argued that “women are not
duly represented in governing bodies and concluded that “the door should be
wide open for them to governing bodies at all levels” (Gorbachev, 1989). After three months then, he appointed
Biryackova to membership of Politburo.
The woes of women’s participation in government
was further orchestrated by the introduction of the reforms of Gorbachev. The number of women in parliament got reduced
except the 75 reserved seats for women (along with 100 reserved for CPSU and 75
for the Komsomol and various other social organizations). Women became less interested in contesting
political posts and elections into the parliament and where they did,
preference was given to their male counterparts by the electorate. Consequently, the percentage of women in parliament
reduced to 15.6 percent. Elections held
in different republics indicated that women made up 11 percent of the Supreme
Soviet in Turkmenia, 7 percent in the Ukraine and Belorussia, 5.4 percent in
the new Russian Supreme soviet and 4.8 percent in Moldava (Buckely, 1992). This trend further deteriorated with the
collapse of the Soviet Union and with the abandonment of fixed quota for women.
Politicking
and Women
The Soviet system did not actually give
women the free hand to be involved in full politics and practice
politicking. Women in the Supreme Soviet
and other levels of parliament were not allowed by the system to articulate an
independently formulate viewpoints but rather were mobilized to raise up their
hands in support of policies and issues already decided upon by the party
policy making organ. This raised the
question of whether women actually had a place in politics.
Another issue that is related to this
problem is the idea that politics is a dirty game. A reference to this was frequently made
during the Soviet era indicating that politics does not befit the kind and
gentle nature of women. Contrary to
this, however, the state guarantees equality of the sexes not only in politics
but in other spheres of life. For
example, the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation declares in Articles
19.3 that “man and woman have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities
for their realization.” Although this
article was initially lacking in the constitution, President Boris Yeltsin,
under pressure from women, had to have it inserted in the constitution. Other former Soviet republics had to adopt
similar steps to further encourage some participation in politics. This was very important as women needed to be
stimulated into politics after the abandonment of fixed quota system which
consequently reduced drastically the presence of women in the parliament across
the commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and also in Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia.
The noticeable manifestation of this
reduction is seen in the result of 1995 election. But before this, the 1993 election shows that
60 women won seats out of a total of 450 in the new Duma amounting to 13
percent. On that of 1995, the number
fell to 45 or 10 percent of all the seats. The breakdown is seen on Table 1. 1 below:
Table
1.1: Seats in the Duma from the
Party List, 1995 Election
Parties |
No.
of Women |
No.
of Men |
Total |
Women
as a % of total of each list |
Our Home is Russia |
2 |
43 |
45 |
4.4 |
Yabloko |
2 |
29 |
31 |
6.5 |
Communist Party |
9 |
90 |
96 |
9.4 |
Liberal Democratic Party |
1 |
49 |
50 |
2.0 |
Total |
14 |
211 |
222 |
22.3 |
Source:
Compiled from Rossiiskaya Federatsiya, No. 2, 1996, pp. 8 – 12.
The table gives a breakdown of the
election’s result using the only four political parties that were able to meet
the 5 percent barrier in the 1995 election.
Table
1.2: Political Affiliation of Women Elected to the Duma in the Single Member constituencies,
1995 Election
Party
or Movement |
No.
of Women |
Pamfilova-Gurov-Lysenko Obshchee Geils (common Cause) Our Home is Russia Vlast Narodu (Power to the People) Women of Russia Yabloko Communist Party Independents |
1 1 2 2 3 4 8 10 |
Total |
31 |
Source:
Compiled from Rossiiskaya Federatsiya, No. 2, 1996, pp. 12 – 20.
Table 1.2 shows that women did better in
1995 in the single member constituencies. They won 31 out of the total 225 seats amounting to 13.8 percent while
that of men amounted to 86.2 percent. The table further shows that, ten women candidates contested as
independents while others held different political views and were affiliated to
different political parties. From the
table, it is evident that not all parities fielded women candidates as none of
the elected women was from Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party.
Women
Political Movement
The new Russian State was in a hurry to contain
new political ideas and changes expected of a new independent state. This led to dissolution of the parliament
elected in 1990 and another election held in December 1993. Prior to this election, some women activists
had concluded plans on how best to fight in the election and to defend women’s
interest in the Duma, an assignment they strongly believed would be done only
by themselves. Consequent upon this,
they formed a new women’s political movement known as “Women of Russia” which
was made up of three organizations: the Union of Women of Russia (formerly
known as SWK), Women of Fleet and the Association of Women Entrepreneurs.
The election of December 1993 was a
turning point in women’s election into the Russian Duma. Women of Russia won 8.1 percent of the 21
seats in the State Duma. There were more
two seats which came from the single-member constituencies thereby bringing the
total number of seats won by women to 23. With this number of seats to their
advantage, Women of Russia formed a faction in the Duma which met weekly or
bi-weekly. The faction was led by an
experienced politician who had been a deputy in previous Russian
Parliament. She was Eketerina
Lakhova. She was formerly an Adviser to
President Yeltsin on Women’s Affairs. Apart from Lakhova, Alevtina Fedulova was another influential leader of the faction.She was the Chair of the
Union of Women of Russia and was elected within the Duma to the prominent
position of a Deputy Speaker. Some of
these women had wide range of experiences in politics as quite a number of them
were members of the moribund CPSU and they were mostly professionals from
education, arts, medicine, entertainments, etc.
With strong footing in the state Duma,
the sky was the limit to Women of Russia in particular and Russian women
generally. They saw this as the
beginning of good things that were yet to come into women’s participation in
politics and government. Because of
their numerical strength and experience of many of the deputies in different
fields of human endeavour, they were appointed into different committees of the
parliament. They were not only represented in Committee for Women, the Family
and Youth and on the committee for Health Protection (they sent three members
to each), Women of Russia was also represented in Committees for Defence,
Security, Budget, Economic Policy, International Affairs, cooperation with
independent States, etc. To the women,
this has turned around the popular belief that women can only do better in
matters relating to women. They now
began to realize and enjoy equality with their male counterparts who could
sometimes rely on their suggestions in carrying out some government policies
and decisions. This in effect became a sort of morale booster for Women of
Russia as it enhanced the movement’s grasp of contemporary issues.
However, the activities of Women of
Russia in the Duma have been viewed as having a lot of inconsistencies. It was on record that Women of Russia voted
in favour of non-inflationary budget in 1995 but later supported a draft law on
the minimum wage which was inflationary itself. Before this, it was also known that on 21 June, 1994, the faction voted
for government’s privatization programme but later on 7 April 1995 agreed that
the President’s decree should be referred to the constitution court. On the war in Chechnya, the Women of Russia
demanded debate on the war but special relationship that existed between
especially Lakhova and Yeltsin hindered it. What is more, on 13 January 1995, over half of the faction voted in
support of a bill prohibiting war in Chechnya but refused to back a bill which
denies finances to military act in the Chechnya. In view of all these, the faction was
variously branded ‘inconsistent’, ‘support of the government’, ‘supporter of
the communists’ and also ‘supporter of the Liberal Democrats’. The faction defended this by insisting that
their voting patterns had always changed according to the changes of time and
regarded their actions as being pragmatic. (White, Pravda, Gitelman 1994)
With this euphoria at the back of their
minds, they were full of expectations in the elections and hoped to make over 5
percent barrier on the party list. The
results, however, showed that the results varied in different regions in the
elections of 1993 and 1995. The result of
1995 elections showed that Women of Russia won over 5 percent in 44 of the 89
‘areas of the federation’. In ten of
these subjects, the vote was over 8 percent, reaching 10 percent in the Evenk
autonomous Okrug. In nine regions, the
vote was over 7 percent. By contrast,
however, Women of Russia fell below the 5 percent threshold in 45 of the
republics and regions; and in 16, their support was under 2 percent. These included the cities of Moscow and St.
Petersburg, the Chuvash Republic, Krasnodar Krai, Voronezh, Tambov, and Kursk
Oblasts. Borderline areas which nearly
made the 5 percent hurdle included Iskov, Kaliningrad and Novosibirsk Oblasts;
but in all the republics and regions, with just one exception, the percentage
vote for Women of Russia fell in 1995 as compared with 1993 (only in the
Kabardino-Balkar Republic did the vote negligibly increase from 4.6 percent in
1993 to 4. 74 percent in 1995 – White, Pravda, Gitelman, 1997).
The question has been why Women of Russia
had persistently been losing popularity. This is notwithstanding the fact that there had been increase in number
of voters in many republics. The reason
was obvious. It is attributable to the
inability of Women of Russia to consolidate on the support they gained in
election of 1993. Although larger number of voters turned out in the 1995 election,
they voted other political parties more than the women of Russia.
>Other hurdles that Women of Russia had
to scale through in the 1995 elections was the practice of other political
parties’, a part from Women of Russia’s inclusion of women in strategic
positions of the party and expose them to contest important posts in
government. Through this practice,
electorates were made to agree that it was not only Women of Russia as a
political group that cared for the interest of Russian women but that others
equally did. Notable among parties that
fielded women were Chemomyrchu’s Our Home is Russia, which put women in fifth
and seventh places on its list. Others were
Gaidar’s Democratic Choice of Russia, which gave a woman third place and
Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party, which allowed a woman tenth place.
Success at polls, therefore, depended
largely on interest and membership of a party and not because of protection of
a particular sex. Equally significant
was that there was a large turnout of voters in the 1995 elections and many
voters in that election who did not vote in 1993 chose to vote other parties
instead of Women of Russia. Consequently,
popularity of Women of Russia started dwindling.
The unsuccessful outing of the party,
that is her inability to make over 5 percent barrier was very demoralizing and was described by
many as plague that hit the party hard. This
has been attributed to many factors. Eketerina Lakhova attributed it to misunderstanding about the party’s
position on Chechnya while Sveltana Orlova heaped it on unpleasant attempt to
discredit women.
The view of feminists on the poor
performance of Women of Russia is rather different. They blame it on the
party’s inability to challenge violence against women. They equally criticized the contradictory position
taken by Women of Russia on Chechnya which put a lot of voters into confusion.
Working
Women in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia
There has not been clear cut demarcation
in sex related jobs in both Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Russian women at work cut across all skills
and professions. Women work in road and
railway constructions, building high-rise houses, bridges, mining, and other
strenuous works that naturally should have been left for men. This trend has been much criticized and
discredited by other cultures who see it as unfortunate results of the
repressive past. The criticism has been
that women have been forced out to work by the government; they lose their
femininity and forget their natural role in the society. Because of the urgency for a change of this
trend, democrats and nationalist have championed the call on women to quickly
return to their natural domestic duties at homes. However, there has not been positive
follow-up of this clamour by women voices whether democrats, communists or
nationalists. It was therefore regarded
as men speaking for women when women should have been speaking or
themselves. There are indications that
women did not want this in the 1970s, the 1980s and now again in the 1990s
(Buckley, 1989, p. 169; Ashwin and Bowers, 1997).
Modern Russian women from some
interviews conducted have shown their desire to be part of working community.
According to them, there are some emotional benefits gained when they leave
home to share their aspirations, problems and joy with their colleagues at their
working places. Apart from this, they
emphasize on the financial benefits for working. Inflationary prices and the inadequacy of one
salary or two pensions mean that most women must work and that even female
pensioners are being driven back into the labour force or on to the street,
where they stand in underpasses trying to sell old possessions or a loaf of
bread, cigarettes or carton of milk bought earlier that day (White, Pravada,
Gitelman, 1997). To most women, working
is inevitable if they must be able to meet up with everyday financial
requirement of homes and to live a fulfilled life.
But no matter how much some of these
women would like to contribute to the labourforce of the state in the 1990s, it
remains an illusion as the present level of unemployment and uncertainty of
remaining in jobs was not known in the Soviet era. The rate at which people are losing their
jobs is unprecedented in the history of Russia and women constitute about 70
percent of them. This was to bring home
the argument of people who hold the view that the state has not really done
anything to give women correct bearing and place them where they rightly
belong. This is followed by opinion of
critics of women remaining at jobs who argue that keeping women at jobs is rather
expensive and that their marginal output is usually low compared to their male
counterparts. They see them as being
unstable at work as they are oftentimes fund of asking for maternity leave and
asking for permission to take care of their sick children or for excuses
related to taking care of their homes.
However, the rate of unemployment in
Russia has been over-exaggerated. There
is no gainsaying the fact that a lot of people, both male and female did lose
their jobs but it was not to the proportion it has been blown. According to figures from the Federal Employment
Service published in the newspaper Segodnya,
the official unemployment rate was 2.9 percent at the end of 1995 and real
unemployment was estimated at 8.2 percent or approximately 6 million
people. Real unemployment reached 9.5
percent in 1996 and 10.8 percent in 1997 affecting 7 and 8 million people
respectively. Official statistics also
suggested that the percentage of women among the registered unemployed was
falling. At the end of 1992, women were
72.2 percent of the officially unemployed, falling to 62.3 percent in the
spring of 1995. Moreover, survey data
from Goskomstat even indicated that unemployment among women was lower than
among men, contrary to all earlier statements. As early as October 1992, for instance, surveys suggested that women
made up 49.5 percent of the unemployed and men constituted 50.5 percent,
challenging the much written on the subject hitherto (Ashwin and Bowers, 1997).
It is not very simple to get accurate
statistics of women who are unemployed. According to Rebotintsa, a
women’s magazine, women are not often inclined to register as unemployed. They could not afford to declare themselves
unemployed thereby lose their benefits. It has been observed that both in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, women
have concentrated themselves at lower paid jobs in factories and allowing their
male counterparts to occupy higher paid positions thereby making it possible for men to receive
higher pay than them. Equally observed
is the fact that female labour often is not paid on time; that their salaries
often come in arrears.
A study of Russian women at work in the
1990s indicates that women are more inclined towards expanding their involvement
in what is known in Russia as “individual economic activity”, or “individual
labour activity”. According to research
carried out by Liliya Babaeva and Alla Chirkova, women go for some jobs for
“supplementary income” rather than for a main salary. Writing in 1996 in the journal Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, they
pointed out that this work generally embraces sewing, knifing, embroidery,
wicker work, gathering berries, conserving fruits and vegetables. Hardly new to post-Soviet women, these skills
bring in necessary “extra” money on which they avoid paying taxes. Not requiring capital outlay, this sort of
work can be stepped up when money is especially needed. Fewer women have ventured into small
business. Those who have, according to
Babaeva and Chirkova, tend to work in fashion accessories. They often suffer, however, from inflationary
spirals which threaten the longevity of their business* (Bridger, Kay and
Pinnick, 1996).
Figures from Goskomstar for 1994 show
that women made up 39 percent of joint owners of commercial companies (of which
there were over 900,000), 23 percent of “cooperative” business-persons hiring
labour. Babaeva and Chirkova suggest
that women are more reluctant to start business than men but once in business;
they are more attentive to their workforce (as is often the case in the
West). Interviews done by Marta Bruno in
Moscow also illustrate that women street-vendors have developed a very
different working culture from men in business, often a more “moral” one, in which
the women support each other and try to promote Russian products rather than
imported ones (Bruno, 1997).
Babaeva and Chirkova went further to
know people’s reaction on women in business. Responding to a question in their questionnaire ‘can women be successfully
involved in business’?, 55 percent of the total response said “yes” while 22
percent said “no”. “When questioned
about why women might not be good in business, 22 percent thought they were not
gifted in this way; 22 percent considered that financial institutions would not
take them seriously so credit would be unavailable, and 12 percent suggested
that women lacked the necessary training” (White, Pravda and Gitelman, 1997)
Women
Activities in NGOs
The Russian populace has been skeptical
about feminism which it sees as Western consciousness imported to transform
women into men. The country therefore
has witnessed low formation and spread of women’s non-governmental
organizations across the country. The
closed-door policy of the state further crippled incentives in forming such organizations.
Presently, however, significant women
groups have started emerging and with the introduction of Glasnost under Gorbachev, a lot of women’s professional
associations such as the Club of Women Journalists, Federation of Women Writers
and the Union of Women Cinematographers were formed to set up feminist
organizations and to establish women’s studies as an academic discipline in the
Academy of Science (Veronica, 1994). A
remarkable attempt to bring together women form different regions for a central
co-ordinate action was made in 1991 in a gathering in Dubna of “The First
Independent Women” forum and was later followed by the second in 1992. Among participants in the forum are SAFO (The
Free Association of Feminist Organization) and NEZDHI (The Independent Women’s Democratic
Initiative) which grew out of seminars held at the centre for Gender studies in
Moscow (Lipovskaya, 1992).
The outcome of this initiative and
awareness amongst women was that many further developments frequently organized
around particular local needs or issues have taken place. Example of such organizations is “a girl’s
shelter”, Euphimia, which was formed
in St. Petersburg with the aim of helping homeless adolescents. There is also Nadezhda (Hope) which was also formed to support women suffering
from cancer. Other such organizations
are lesbian groups, MOLLI (the Moscow Organization of Lesbian Literature and
Art) and Sappho-Petersburg, both were formed to protect professional interest
of their members in particular and womenfolk in general.
With increase in violence against women
in the 1990s, more centres with the aim of assisting victims were established. Many a times, similar centres in the West
have provided financial and moral support to these centres. The centres are provided with sufficient
communication networks for prompt reach and are equipped with facilities that
make them respond fast to emergency cases. The first independent centre for Aid to Victims of Sexual Violence known
as the ‘Sisters’ was opened in Moscow
in 1994. There are doctors and
psychologists in this centre who give psychological, medical and legal help and
as well as social support to victims. This support is “unconditional”. This stems out from the all-pervasive myth both in Russia and elsewhere
that all cases of rape and violence against women are their “fault”. A second “Sister” was opened in 1995 in St.
Petersburg and over 15 such centres are now established all over the Russian
Federation.
In trying to assess and determine the
rate of violence against women in Russia, Lynne Attwood pointed out that in
1993 alone, 14, 500 women were reported to have been murdered by their male
partners, amounting to over half of all recorded murders (Attwood, 1997). By all calculations, this is
outrageous. Commenting on this rate,
Tatyana Sotnikova writing in the newspaper Segodnya
in January 1996 said that in the previous years there had been 12,500
rapes. But “Sisters’ pointed out that
only 2 percent of victims ever went to the police, so this figure was a gross
understatement. Frequently, women were
not treated with much sympathy, which was a disincentive to report the
incident. One rape victim had been
quoted to the effect that a militia man had responded to her complaint with
‘what are you upset about? It’s not as
if you are a virgin’. Such crushing
insensitivity and sheer disrespect for women is deeply embedded in the Russian
social fabric and deters women from coming forward (White, Pravda, Gitelman,
1997). This, however, is applicable in
the West and in fact, all over the world.
Another popular and important women’s
group that was formed in 1989 during the time of Gorbachev, was the Committee
of Soldiers’ Mothers which brought together mothers whose sons had died, were
injured or were still fighting in Afghanistan. The main objective of this group was to fight for social security and
benefits to those whose Mothers’ made an important impact on public awareness
and Gorbachev set up a special commission to respond to the thousands of
complaints received (Pinnick, 1997).
After troops were sent into Chechnya,
the mothers began demonstrating in Red Square and bombarding Yeltsin with
letters of protest. By 1994, the
Committee of Solders’ Mothers had local committees across the country and so
established a coordinating committee. Like Gorbachev, Yeltsin felt pressured to react and he asked his staff
to draft a report ‘On Appeal from Soldiers’ Mothers’. Although the mothers enjoy considerable
support among women and exude a ‘moral’ authority, they have been accused of
being unpatriotic and of fuelling the anti-conscription movement. Indeed, the mothers threatened to disrupt the
call-up procedure for Chechnya (Pinnick, 1997). But of all the women’s groups to have formed since Glasnost, The Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers has made perhaps the
largest impact on Russian society and politics. International recognition came in 1996 when they were nominated for the
Nobel Peace Prize (White, Pravda, Gitelman, 1997). Remarkable is also their stance on the present
Russian forces battle with Islamic militants in the mountains of the North
Caucasus of Dagastan, where they have persistently criticized the use of
inexperienced young soldiers in the war.
Conclusion
The reforms introduced by Gorbachev and
inherited by Boris Yeltain turned the table against the euphoric ‘good days’ of
Communist era and the presumed worst hit is women. Good number of Russian women born in
pre-reform era of the then Soviet Union believe that their rights are currently
being eroded; their fixed percentages of political representations have been
taken away; their savings loosing value; their pensions are grossly inadequate
and prices of services and certain commodities unaffordable. The problem of
child rearing is posing untold hardship to women considering the fact that kindergartens
have closed down or where available, have introduced very high fee
charges. Also, hiring nurses or making
use of grandmothers (babushki) is not only expensive but unreliable as before
because they too are looking for ways to augment their low pension.
Another area where women have made an
impact is in politics. Suffice it to say
that women have political opportunities but top political positions are still
held by men, notwithstanding few exceptions. Even when outstanding women do make it to highly responsible posts, such
as Tatyana Paramonova in 1994 as acting Head of the Central Bank, their tenure
is insecure. When Victor Gerashchenko
resigned and recommended her appointment to Yeltsin and to the Duma committee
on the Budget, she was passed over. Admittedly, this occurred at a complicated political moment. The situation was muddied since Gerashchenko had
left his job without approval from the Duma after the ruble collapsed on “Black
Tuesday” (White, Pravda, Gitelman, 1997).
This is made more complex by failure of
women to present themselves for these vital positions. According to available records, it was only
Galina Starovoitova of the Democratic Russia that put herself forward in the
presidential elections of 1996. Many
Russian women politicians were yet to believe that time was already ripe for
women to hold a very sensitive and most challenging position of President of
Russia. This jinx, however, was broken
by the swearing in of Vaira Vike-Freiberg as Latvia’s President on July 8, 1999
making her the first woman elected as a head of State in Eastern Europe (Guardian, July 9, 1999). The challenge therefore as thrown to Russian
women. It is high time they realized
that gender is a concept and that civilization is supposed to include sexual
equality in practice as well as in rhetoric.
Bibliography
Ashwin,
Sarah and Bowers, Elaine (1997). “Do
Russian Women Want to Work?” Buckley.
Atwood,
Lynne (1990). The New Soviet Man and Women: Sex-Role
Socialization in the USSR. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bridger,
S. Kay, R., and Pinnick, K. (eds.) (1996).
No More Heroines? Russia, Women and Market. London: Routlege.
Bruno,
Marta (1997). “Women and the Culture of Entrepreneurship” Buckley.
Constitution of the Russian
Federation 1993.
Gorbachev,
M. (1989). Izbrannye rechi i stat’i, Vol. 6. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoi
literatury.
Guardian,
July 9, 1999.
Lapidus,
Gail (1978). Women in Soviet Society:
Equality, Development and Social Change. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lipovoskaya,
Ol’ga (1992). “New Women’s Organizations” Buckley.
Massell,
Gregory J. (1974). The Surrogate
Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia
1919 – 1929. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
McAuley,
A. (1981). Women’s Work and Nagas in the
Soviet Union. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Newspaper
Segodnya. Jan. 1996.
Pinnick,
K. (1994). ‘The Soldiers’ Mothers and Afghan Madonnas’, in Buckley (1997a).
Sacks,
Michael (1976). Women’s Work in Soviet
Russia: Continuity in the Midst of Change. New York: Praeger.
Veronina,
O. (1994). ‘The Mythology of Women’s Emancipation in the USSR as the Foundation
for a Policy of Discrimination’. in Posadskaya. pp.37 – 56.
Walter,
Michael (1993). The End of the Communist
Power Monopoly. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
White,
Pravada, Gitelman (1997). Development in
Russian Politics 4. Basingstoke UK: Macmillan Press.
White,
Stephen, Rose, Richard and McAllister, Ian (1997). How Russia Votes. Chatham NJ: Chatham House.
*Chuka Chukwube - Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of European Languages, University of
Lagos, Nigeria. Dr. Chukwube has been teaching Russian Language and
Civilization in the University for good number of years and has published
extensively in that area of studies e mail: chukachukwube@yahoo.com
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES