Mapping Difference

The Many Faces of Women in Contemporary Ukraine

Marian J. Rubchak, Marian J. Rubchak

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9780857451194
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Feminism & Feminist Theory
• Index: Social Sciences

Drawn from various disciplines and a broad spectrum of research interests, these essays reflect on the challenging issues confronting women in Ukraine today. The contributors are an interdisciplinary, transnational group of scholars from gender studies, feminist theory, history, anthropology, sociology, women's studies, and literature. Among the issues they address are: the impact of migration, education, early socialization of gender roles, the role of the media in perpetuating and shaping negative stereotypes, the gendered nature of language, women and the media, literature by women, and local appropriation of gender and feminist theory. Each author offers a fresh and unique perspective on the current process of survival strategies and postcommunist identity reconstruction among Ukrainian women in their current climate of patriarchalism.

CHAPTER 1

Turning Oppression into Opportunity

An Introduction

Marian J. Rubchak

Women hold up half the sky
—Chinese proverb

In their introductory chapter to Living Gender under Communism, Janet Johnson and Jean Robinson note that the Soviet era had witnessed gender, which was “simultaneously promoted in the rhetoric on motherhood and denied in the rhetoric on the ‘woman question’ and women’s equality” (2007).¹ There are parallels to be drawn here between Soviet discourse and that of today’s Ukraine. Much of the latter’s rhetoric on women projects the image of an empowered berehynia (guardian) as progenitor, custodian of family values, and national identity,² whereas women’s true equality remains contested.

Notwithstanding such correlations between then and now, significant differences also remain to be explored. With Ukraine’s chain of historical memory having been deliberately obscured during the Soviet era, the nation lost almost three-quarters of a century in its evolution to an open democratic society. In 1991 independence unsealed the communist borders, eliminated Soviet proscriptions, and revealed a gateway for contacts with the west. The ensuing exchange released a flow of information, and resources for establishing, coordinating, and sustaining gender-friendly programs, while fostering conditions in which new gender formations might materialize and multiply. In this postcommunist space, weaker, often contradictory social pressures on negotiating gender and disseminating its message have replaced the dictatorial state regulations that once circumscribed personal agency (Johnson and Robinson 2007: 8–9). Yet, neotraditional societal values, foregrounding the idea that women are products of nature, without any intervention from culture and society, impose their own constraints on the dynamics of gender construction. This volume explores such contradictory impulses—individual freedom to determine one’s gender, and societal impediments to a multiplicity of new gender constructions.

An early indicator of the shifting mood of opinion on women’s rights might have been observed in the ranks of the intellectual elite with the appearance of an article titled “Does Ukrainian Literary Scholarship Need a Feminist School?” in 1991.³ It was the product of one of Ukraine’s earliest post-Soviet proponents of feminism, Solomea Pavlychko. Two years later her initiative provided the stimulus for a team of talented women to launch the country’s first self-styled “feminist” magazine titled Piata Pora (Fifth Season). It created a sensation, yet for all of its bold initiative—and it was bold for the time and the place—this “feminist” journal did not lack for paradoxes. Articles on equal rights and opportunities intermingled with references to women in essentialist roles, and warnings about the dangers of publicly active women losing their femininity. This caution, versions of which I heard repeatedly during my numerous visits to Ukraine, brought to mind something I read in an article written by Dmytro Vydrin, titled: “Woman, Glamour and Politics.” In a discussion devoted to female politicians, the author argued: “When a man enters politics he leaves behind his principles, but when a woman enters politics she leaves behind her womanhood” (2007). In the second issue, published in March 1993, Piata Pora continued to exhibit the unmistakable signs of evolving into yet another traditional women’s magazine. In an attempt to sustain their agenda of publishing a “feminist” journal, its editors featured articles on notable women in history and female contributions to literature and art, yet alongside these pieces examples of neotraditional values competed for space. Whatever the initial intent of the journal’s founders, it soon became obvious that this “grand feminist experiment” was fated for extinction. They had managed to bring out a second issue, but in so doing the founders exhausted their financial resources and were unsuccessful in attracting further funding. Despite this setback, their dream of spreading the feminist “gospel” did not die with the journal’s demise.

In May 1994, for the first time Ukrainian readers were able to read serialized selections in translation from Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. They were published in the widely circulated magazine Ukraina, prior to the release of a two-volume edition of the entire translated work later that year (13–14).⁴ It was hoped that this celebrated feminist publication would soon become the cornerstone of an east-west feminist ideological bridge. As Tatiana Zhurzhenko noted in her contribution to this volume, however, that cornerstone had already been laid—not in Ukraine, but in the North American Ukrainian diaspora. There, studies on Ukrainian feminism had a somewhat earlier start, with the publication of Feminists Despite Themselves, by Martha Bohachevsky-Chomiak, in 1988, followed by writings of others. Those early works returned an important piece of history to Ukraine, and scholarly collaboration was eagerly anticipated as a result. It quickly became apparent however, that at least for a time this would be a dichotomous relationship, with feminism being viewed through a bifocal lens, until the respective sides were able to reconcile their dissimilar historical and cultural experiences.

The following year, 1995, as if to send a signal that a genuine window of opportunity for mainstreaming gender politics was finally opened, women in Ukraine prepared to participate in the Fourth World Congress on Women in Beijing. Meanwhile, pressed by skillful negotiations on the part of a resolute group of female activists, the Ukrainian government scheduled a path-breaking event in Kyiv on 12 July 1995. For the first time in the nation’s history the parliament (Verkhovna Rada) convened a special hearing on discrimination against women. Although billed as an historical breakthrough in elevating women’s issues to the highest political level, in point of fact the hearing functioned as a “showcase” of the country’s progress in complying with the 1979 UN Convention “On Eliminating All Forms of Discrimination against Women,” one of several international women’s rights treaties to which Soviet Ukraine was a signatory. As Tatiana Zhurzhenko reminds us: “the Ukrainian government, bound by its international obligations, found itself compelled to cooperate with Ukrainian women’s groups in developing national programs” (2004: 37). Dignitaries from Ukraine and abroad were in attendance at this historic public show of compliance.

The majority of speakers were female activists, members of women’s associations, NGOs, and the government. In the course of their appeals for gender equality, a number of them characterized authentic Ukrainian women as irrevocably bound to gender-specific roles irrespective of their public accomplishments. Their presentations underscored the persistence with which most of Ukraine’s women embrace the traditional model of separate spheres yet, all too comfortable with this accommodation, they simply collude in their own subordination. Their extremely low numbers in Ukraine’s post-Soviet leadership positions, and virtual confinement to traditional female agendas when they do come to office, attest to the continuing tenacity of patriarchal values in Ukraine. Although the dominant discourse on women’s issues offers the illusion of empowered womanhood, in fact it functions as an effective agent of acculturation to values designed to serve a male power structure. This deception carries immense appeal for Ukrainian women, however; it lulls them into a false sense of their superior worth, even as it relegates them to the status of a second sex.

During the hearing, many of the participants pressed their demands for justice with phrases such as: “allowing women to be women,” accompanied by references to women as reproducers of the nation, its culture, and its moral values. The Janus-like attribute of their calls for special concessions on the one hand, and demands for equal rights and opportunities on the other, created an uneasy discursive alliance throughout the proceedings. It also evoked ridiculous relics of the pervasive sexism, causing men to declare that “women cannot cook soup with one hand and run the affairs of a country with the other.” One male legislator went so far as to suggest that gender injustice might be eliminated if women were to elect appropriate men to advocate on their behalf (Ukrainian Observer, 26 March 2007).⁵

On 9 June 2004, large segments of a second hearing sounded like “déjàvu all over again.” The same maternalist language, the same tired references to women’s “beauty and charm” heard nine years earlier, reverberated throughout the hall. To be fair, faint echoes of new concerns also found their way into the discourse—appeals for ending violence against women, and certain practical suggestions for resolving the gender justice impasse. Unfortunately for the women’s cause, the latter continue to resist implementation.

Although these initial attempts at securing equal rights proved disappointing, not all of the women’s demands went unnoticed, as a third hearing on 21 November 2006 confirmed. Contrary to the first two women-dominated sessions, on this occasion both speakers and guests consisted of men and women in roughly equal numbers. Two discrete subjects were scheduled for deliberation: violence against women during the morning session, and equal rights and opportunities in the afternoon. Except for a single digression, when a lone female participant resurrected the tired old canard of the women’s “natural” moral superiority,⁶ most of morning’s proceedings concentrated on the alarming rise in the volume of female trafficking, and domestic violence against women.⁷ Participants also took the opportunity to register their formal support of an amendment on equal rights and opportunities to Ukraine’s constitution, ratified at the beginning of the year.⁸

So far so good, I thought, as I looked around at the mixed assembly that morning. Did this indicate that a gender-parity threshold had finally been reached? I thought it might, but my optimism was short lived. What had seemed to represent genuine progress veiled a strong undercurrent of persistent male indifference to women’s rights. As if to underscore this, most of the men who attended the morning session drifted away during the midday break.

Can greater female participation in public life supply a remedy? A small minority of women have begun to establish their presence in various public offices, although their long-standing exclusion from positions of authority still inhibits the ability of most to affect public policy in any significant way. The periodic renaming and downgrading of the one ministerial agency with any formal connection to women’s issues provides us with a credible indicator of their continuing marginalization at these highest levels. In 1995, following the Beijing conference, a Presidential Committee on Women, Maternity, and Childhood was formed in Ukraine, after which it became the Ministry of Family and Youth. The ministry’s sponsorship of such promising events as bringing together government administrators, legislators, and activists in a series of consciousness-raising workshops, training sessions, and seminars resulted in failure to make any substantive gains. This led to a serial reorganization into less influential bodies. In 2005, the committee rose once again to the level of a ministry, named the Ministry of Children, Family, and Youth. In 2006, in yet another name change the body became known as the Ministry of Family, Youth, and Sport, but this time it featured only a gender subset and a disproportionate emphasis on sport.⁹ Apart from political appointments to government offices representing the interests of family and children, the potential for women becoming full partners in the political mainstream remained an elusive dream.

An excerpt from the presidential greeting on International Women’s Day in 2008 indicates what an uphill struggle for gender parity women in transitional Ukraine continue to face:

My dear Ukrainian women, I greet you with this spring celebration, a celebration of women’s beauty which blooms in today’s Ukraine. In my heart I hold only the most tender feelings toward you, as do millions of men in their hearts—men bewitched by you, devoted to you, and grateful for your love. I wish you happiness, love, and offer my assurance that everything in your lives will come out right. … We love, respect, and thank you—our mothers, our wives, our beloveds, our friends, our daughters—all of the most important women in our lives. … On this joyful day of celebrating love and hope I greet you, our most enticing, most beautiful women in the world!¹⁰

So much for progress. For his part, in 2009 Deputy Lytvyn greeted the women with:

A woman’s mission is to bear and raise children, to be the Berehynia [still with us] of the family hearth. No less vital in this day and age is her participation in community life, engagement in business, and show of professionalism in all that she does.

Without you, our beloved women, there would be less light, love, and warmth. You fill our days with brilliant color and help us men to grow finer, inspiring us to noble deeds. You give us strength to become better, more caring, and self-assured—qualities requiring that special feminine tact, intuition, tolerance, and endurance—those amazing traits which men so often tend to lack.

Accept our most profound appreciation, beloved women, for your maternal generosity, intelligence, and support. From the depths of our hearts we wish you, our dear mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters, eternal youth, joy, and beauty.¹¹

Failing to recognize such salutations for what they truly are—expressions that traditionalize gender ideology—many of the country’s women are flattered by these public declarations of “esteem.” They give no hint of understanding that in accepting this sort of patronizing “Hallmark” salutation as a tribute to them, they forego their own interests as women deserving of equality and respect. To look upon such a greeting as something more than a condescending “greeting card” message is to diminish all women.

Still, not every woman is of a like mind. Ethnologist, feminist scholar, and one of our contributors, Oksana Kis’, was so incensed by the presidential message that she dispatched a scorching open letter to him, which several internet sites promptly posted.¹² Informed women from all parts of Ukraine joined her in a chorus of condemnation, confirming the fact that at least some women no longer welcome such debasing, saccharine expressions of affection; but the same gesture also had its dark side. Negative responses, perhaps stemming from a misunderstanding of the intent of this open letter, outnumbered the supporting comments, providing additional evidence of how much work still lies ahead.¹³

In Ukraine, the 1995 Beijing Conference had supplied the impetus for a coalescence of women’s organizations. It also acted as an incentive for the passage of early legislation on equal rights and opportunities. Regrettably, although all such changes represent a hopeful beginning, these developments have yet to generate a widely accepted gender-neutral paradigm of a kind that discourages women from fantasizing about their alleged empowerment. The tendency on the part of many to believe in their own centrality is based upon a deeply rooted ancient matriarchal myth of women as guardians of the family hearth. In all likelihood, this position would have been the source of their empowerment in clan life, inasmuch as presiding over such a female domain also indicated the virtual inevitability of a women’s presence at all deliberations. The matriarchal myth it engendered appears to have justified the titular esteem in which Ukraine’s women have always been held.

Although this penchant for identifying with some legendary matriarchal ideal has begun to diminish somewhat, especially among younger women, significant numbers continue to embrace the symbol of some prehistoric female centrality to validate their sense of personal worth. For their part, sexist men persist in turning this cherished ideal to their own purposes by encouraging the atavistic belief.

Chapter Organization

Like their counterparts in many parts of the world, Ukrainian women have suffered from scholarly neglect throughout history. In an attempt to give them a richly-deserved voice, the present collection highlights the various...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Turning Oppression into Opportunity: An Introduction
• 2. Between “Europe” and “Africa”: Building the New Ukraine on the Shoulders of Migrant Women
• 3. Women as Migrants on the Margins of the European Union
• 4. Prove It to Me: The Life of a Jewish Social Activist in Ukraine
• 5. Biography as Political Geography: Patriotism in Ukrainian Women’s Life Stories
• 6. Chronicle of Children’s Holidays: Construction of Gender Stereotypes in Ukrainian Preschools and Elementary Education
• 7. Gender, Language Attitudes, and Language Status in Ukraine in the 1990s
• 8. Feminizing Journalism in Ukraine: Changing the Paradigm
• 9. Feminism, Nationalism, and Women’s Literary Discourse in Post-Soviet Ukraine
• 10. Feminist (De)Constructions of Nationalism in the Post-Soviet Space
• 11. Three Conversations: The Search for Gender Justice
• Notes on Contributors
• Index