Women's self-realization in the context of the evolution of feminism. Problems of feminism Modern feminists

5 846

As part of the meta-queer festival, a meeting was held with Ukrainian researcher Olga Plakhotnik. (Minsk, TsEH space, 09/05/15).

Is it possible to lay out a gender theory using traditional academic metadams? What does feminist pedagogy look like? Is Geta connected only with the learned theory of gender? What is the feminist school, on the other hand, is it the history of mathematics? Who in the feminist class drinks cola?

How much feminism is there - then how many feminist pedagogies are there? How can one learn/learn the theories of gender, gender, and sexuality in relation to the results and practices of sexual change?

How (and this meeting) are related academic activities and activities? What is radical about “radical pedagogies”, why are they “suppressing”? What is the purpose of teaching radical pedagogy at universities and pedagogical higher educational institutions?

This and other tortures we will fade away at once. I am ready to tell you about my investigation of the late American and Scandinavian radical pedagogies. We pay attention to the fact that it replaces us and that we are happy to promote education in our parts of the world.

Volga Plakhotnik - Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the National Aerospace University named after M. Ya. Zhukoisk "KhAI" (Kharka, Ukraine). A graduate of the Master's program of Yerevan State University in honor of her ancestors.

Good day, I am glad to be with you at the meta- festival. I know Volga Plakhotnik, and I don’t know how to speak fluently in Belarusian, so I’ll switch to Russian language, if you don’t suprate. Not suprac?

In fact, I have a few problems with Russian, because my native language is Ukrainian, and I don’t speak or write in Russian that often. If I make mistakes, I apologize in advance.

I have a few initial remarks. Can you hear me well? Do you see? Well, I don’t see you, because this is a stage format, for me it’s not very good. But I hope that when I finish the main part, I can move the microphone away and sit there with my feet dangling, and we will move into a more discussion format. And, of course, now our space is the space of a stage, a public lecture, but this is completely different from radical or feminist pedagogies. You probably understand this too, because there is a very clear division between you and me, we are at different heights, we are lit differently.

“It would be ideal if we sat in a circle, and I am very jealous of those who sit on these beautiful pillows, but I will suffer in the chair.”

It is customary to begin such lectures with remarks of thanks; I have several of them. First, of course, I am grateful to Olga Petrukovich, Tanya Setsko and the feminist library project, who invited me. We didn’t know each other before, but we are united by very important circumstances. This is that we all studied in the gender program at the European Humanities University, and I know that there are several other people here who studied in the gender program at EHU or were involved in it. You will probably all agree that this is a unique place, and in my life, the master's degree in gender studies was a very productive period, in fact, a turning point. I am also obliged to express my gratitude to the institutions involved in my research, which I will talk about today. The first was a Fulbright program that allowed me to spend an academic year in the United States studying feminist and queer peragogy. And the second institution is the Swedish Institute, thanks to whose support I studied norm-critical pedagogy in Sweden. I will also tell you a little about them.

Two words about yourself. I am Ukrainian, I live and work in the city of Kharkov. Now this is a front-line city, if you know. But I also spend a lot of time abroad because I really love studying and interning. Of the last three years, I have probably lived only the smallest part in Ukraine. I am a researcher. Oh, I have a remark on , which I really liked, I must immediately put all the dots in the context of that lecture: I am not queer in the sense of identity. I'm a feminist. More on this later, why I am a feminist and why I don’t call myself queer; for me, the very use of the word “queer” to denote identity sounds very problematic. But I do queer theory as a researcher. I'll explain later what this means to me.

“I’m also in favor of challenging the divide between academia and activism, because I think that divide is political and dangerous.”

And working to bridge that gap or problematize that division will benefit the academy, activism, and society at large. Therefore, I consider myself not only a researcher, but also an activist. As a researcher and activist I am interested in queer theory, and as a philosopher I am interested in epistemology. Don't be put off by this word if it reminds you of a boring philosophy course. Epistemology for me is the place from which knowledge is produced. I find it very productive to think about many things in society in terms of how they might be thought about. The same things, like LGBT activism, can be thought about from this place, or from this place, or from this, or from this. And later in my presentation, epistemological reflections will certainly be heard. I will, however, try to make this clearer than if I were making a purely scientific report. I'm interested in or researching pedagogies, radical pedagogies. In addition, I explore activism, feminist activism, contemporary feminist activism in Ukraine, in particular. And I was also a member of the radical feminist organization “Feministichna Ofenziva”, which existed for 4 years, and now it is no longer there. It was very interesting experience and a very interesting organization, one might say, the first and, perhaps, the only such large and vibrant radical feminist organization in Ukraine.

And one more note. In the process of speaking, I will use feminists not only in relation to myself, but sometimes I will do this to denote a general gender, i.e. If earlier in androcentric language they said “students”, meaning people of any gender, then I will say “students”, meaning people of any gender, or “teachers”, or “activists”, meaning people of any gender. This is unusual, if at any moment you get confused, then ask again what I meant. If I mean specifically female students, i.e. people who are female or identify as female, I will mention this separately.

“Why am I experimenting so much with feminities? Because I study queer theory and believe that working with language and re-signifying concepts is very important. It influences reality, helps change reality"

And the last remark about pedagogy. I was afraid that part of the audience, who have been participating in workshops and lectures since the very morning, would not sit through and leave my lecture, because the word “pedagogy” is very frightening when they are not used to it. And this, in general, always scared me too. Scarecrow of officialdom, boredom. I associated it with totalitarianism, with the engineering of children's souls, some kind of technology. Every time I pick up a book that is published as a textbook for universities, for example, and is called pedagogy. I open it and I get a chill in my stomach. And I understand that for critical thinking people, for creative people, that ossified Soviet, post-Soviet totalitarian pedagogy is, in general, a frightening thing. However, when I started doing research on feminist pedagogies and came across that in the USA the most popular term is “feminist pedagogy”, I began to think how to translate this so that it would not be scary, not boring, and would not cause bad feelings. associations. And then I remembered the same story with the word “queer”, about which Valery Sozaev, thanks to him, is taken: when a very bad, poorly connotated word is taken and through some kind of effort, though not of one person, of course, but of a community, is re-signified and gradually becomes very respectable. So, if you say today, “I’m doing queer theory,” even the most homophobic educational administrators may still not understand what you’re doing or approve of what you’re doing. And then I thought that if I take this word and use it in plural, as “pedagogy” - not as one science, discipline, teaching, but as pedagogy - emphasizing their diversity, their totality, play, collection, different, different practices, and even add some “radical” to the word “pedagogy” or “feminist,” then this is where resignification can occur. I don’t know how this phrase sounds to your ears, but since I’ve been writing and doing this for two or three years, fempedagogy, feminist pedagogy, and radical pedagogy already sound very familiar to me. At the same time, I always feel a very clear distance between fempedagogy and pedagogy in the singular.

When I wrote my dissertation at Yerevan State University about high school, gender issues, I had more about sexuality in high school, my supervisor said: “How can you be interested in education? It's such a depressing topic." And I began to think about these words. Yes, this is a depressing topic, but for me it sounds like a challenge, there is such a word in English - challenge. The same Foucault wrote that where power is exercised, and the school is the place where power is exercised, education is the place where power is exercised in its most naked form, and a space for resistance appears there.

“Where there is power, there is resistance. It became such a challenge for me to think about how practices of resistance, strategies of resistance are possible, how one can think about this in such a depressive space.”

Just a couple of days ago, I read on Facebook not even a joke, but a lively dialogue, where one participant wrote: “What would you give a teacher at school, if not flowers?” And the second one answers her: “Well, give me Foucault’s book “Supervise and Punish.” It was a real conversation between two people. Foucault’s “light” will illuminate our further reflection. I will talk about education in general, not focusing on school, maybe even more about higher education, let's see how it goes further.

I will frame my story as a short journey that reflects the history of my own knowledge or movement within the field, as well as the logic of the production of this knowledge. It will consist of five episodes, one prelude and one instead of a conclusion. Now, if you start with foreplay, then what is so radical about radical pedagogies? A couple of weeks ago I participated and taught in summer school for Ukrainian teachers of gender theory. And one participant, when we discussed different types feminism, said that she is against radical feminism, because radical feminism is feminism that produces violence. "Why?" - I asked. “Well, how about it? Burn bras, throw stones at the police, because even the suffragettes threw stones at the police.” I asked, “Were the suffragettes radical feminists?” - “It seems not. It seems that this was long before the radical one.” So we began to think about the concept and came to the conclusion that we now live in a world where the word “radical right” rather refers to violent actions, but when we talk about radical pedagogy or radical feminism, the word “radical” implies something else. Here “radical” acts as a synonym for the word “total”: at one time, radical feminism raised the question of the totality of patriarchy, criticizing liberal and cultural feminism as partially answering the question of the transformation of society.

In our Russian-speaking, Ukrainian-speaking space, the words “radical pedagogies” sound very strange. You can check on Google - you will not find any sane articles or publications on this topic. In America, since 1975 - this is already 30 years - a magazine called Radical Teacher has been published. And this is a magazine that actually raises, in a socially critical manner, the problems of inequalities based on race, class, gender, sexuality, age, colonial issues, and so on.

“In fact, a radical teacher is a person who, as a teacher, does something to reduce inequality and injustice in the world.”

For example, by the end of 2013, 95 issues of such a magazine had been published, and to make it clear to you, I can give examples of topics. Each issue has its own theme. For example, repression and resistance in higher education, teaching gender and sexuality, teaching and consumption, teaching postcolonial literatures in the era of empire, teaching trans* today, and so on. We see that there are feminist, queer, LGBT themes here, but also colonial, critical, racial theory. There is another magazine in the States called Radical Pedagogy. It is very similar in agenda and has been published since 1999.

If we go to first episode and question where feminist pedagogies begin and end and whether the same thing can be under different names, I will share with you my geographical or rather geopolitical discoveries. As I already said, feminist pedagogies are most common in North America and Australia. It is there that dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the topic of feminist pedagogies have been published. The boom occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s, and today experts almost unanimously agree that interest in feminist pedagogies and radical pedagogies is declining. This is a separate question as to why, and it is connected with neoliberal policies and the decline of social activism and movements. Another example is the Feminist Teacher magazine, which has also been published for many, many years, and periodically the best articles over several years are collected and published in the form of a separate anthology.

If we move across the Atlantic Ocean to, for example, Britain, we will find a very influential association called Gender and Education. The word feminism has disappeared, the word pedagogy has also disappeared. The word “gender” appeared and the word “education” appeared. Gender and Education holds large conferences every two years, and a large number of books and anthologies are also published under the same title. We can ask the question - is it the same thing, just under a different name, or not? I don't have an answer to that question, I guess we'll hang it, but as someone who studies queer theory, I believe that words matter. If we move to Germany, for example, the rhetoric of “gender and education” rather than “feminism and pedagogy” dominates. You can find everything, but if you look at search engines, “gender and education” dominates. Then I move to Sweden, which is the title of the master's program at Linkopin University, where I interned, and feminist pedagogy appears again. The program itself is called “Gender Studies: Intersectionality and Change,” and the course that the students take is called Feminist pedagogy and intersectionality gender didactic. Feminist pedagogy appears again, i.e. the very topic where this feminist pedagogy exists under its own name and what it is filled with, and where it appears under a different name. Why is the name different - this is a very separate interesting topic. Again, I’m hanging it up, I have preliminary ideas on how to think about it, but it’s not today.

Second episode. What is the problem? What problem does feminist pedagogy solve? Why is it needed? I formulated the question in English, or rather, I used two quotes from the most widespread articles reflecting the main debate. In 1982, a report by the American Association of University Women appeared, which was called “Chilly climate for women” - an unfavorable climate for women, which was proven on the basis of long-term careful measurements, simply measurements made in the classroom, when experts measured, for example, the reaction time of a teacher on female and male student response latencies depending on gender. Do you understand what I'm talking about? The teacher poses a question, and the child begins to think. So, if it’s a girl, after 3 seconds, for example, the teacher says: “Well, you don’t know, we’ll ask someone else now.” And if it is a boy, the teacher gives 5 seconds.

"Those. in fact, feminism came to the academy and discovered that the academy and education are the most powerful social institutions that reproduce inequality.”

/Inaudible remarks from the audience/

They also tried to measure and discuss these things, and this was a very big topic. Thanks for your question, you are right.

The findings are reflected in the phrase “unfavorable climate for women.” The results of these reports are even translated into Russian; if you google it, you can easily find them. I can tell you in a nutshell. I repeat, this is the USA, 1982, where education was separate back in the 60s, boys studied separately from girls. As of 1982, the period of co-education was still short, and the attitudes of the teaching staff had not changed much. In general, the conclusion was made as follows: educational institutions and teachers personally and teachers in general favor boys more, give them more time to think, and praise them differently. Boys are praised for their intelligence, and girls for their neatness, for example. They are criticized differently, treated differently. In Ukraine they tried to repeat these measurements several years ago, and when people with a video camera came to the first grade of a primary school and began filming it all, they suddenly discovered that the teacher primary school seven-year-old boys are addressed by their last name, and girls by their first name. Then, of course, there are many questions about what conclusions can be drawn from this now, but in 1982 in America it was concluded that school does not favor girls, but favors boys. Then research, criticism, articles, and understanding of experience began, and in the 2000s, publications of a different order began to appear, identifying a different problem, and this problem was figuratively called boys in trouble. What does this mean? We started looking at statistics, measurements, numbers and discovered that boys in school (we’re talking about high school in the 2000s) a) on average do worse in school; b) more often they find themselves expelled from schools for misconduct, for bad behavior, and in general things are bad with them there, and now the boys need to be saved. Thus, how to formulate the problem of feminist pedagogy in the 2000s? The question puzzled everyone - it became unclear who needed to be saved there, boys or girls. Moreover, if we call ourselves feminists, can we save boys? And if they really are worse off there, then who should save them? This has led to very serious disagreements and discussions, and for me personally this problem looks absolutely dead-end, because it provides for the option when someone feels good, but others feel bad, i.e. someone feels good at the expense of those who feel bad. And it excludes the possibility that it can be bad for both, that the school as a whole can have a very unfavorable effect on children. And what also doesn’t suit me about this formulation of the question is that this situation looks symmetrical: men and women are supposedly in a symmetrical position in society, a little bad for one or a little bad for the other. And it does not take into account the global gender order, whose name is patriarchy. It is therefore not surprising to me that this formulation of the problem led everyone to a dead end.

And I began to look at how we can talk about fempedagogy differently. Based on many books, I discovered that talking about fempedagogy makes sense if we mean the combination of three main components. This is a slightly simplified diagram, but it conveys the main idea. The first is the feminist content of our teaching, i.e. content of the course: what to talk about, what to write about, what topics to include there and how to develop the discussion. The second component is the forms of teaching themselves, i.e. how we do it. We sit like you and I, or we sit in a circle; I give a long, boring lecture that lasts an hour and a half, or we have a discussion or practical exercise; I arrange a strict examination in the form of a test and mercilessly expel half of the group from the university on the basis of their poor performance or come up with forms of control that would not so much control as help to study, etc. Those. the first is content, the second is form, and the third is my own teaching reflections on what I do, how I do it, why I do it, and also various ways of sharing my reflections with other people. Or the way I am doing it with you now, or teaching seminars, workshops, or an article. My feminist teaching position, for example, will be fully expressed if I teach a course in a feminist vein and then write an article. And in it I will rethink my six-month experience: what I did well or it seemed to me that it was good and works, what I failed, where I made mistakes, what I learned, what my students learned from me. If you take articles on feminist pedagogies from Western academia, you will not find an article that simply speculates in the abstract about how good it would be to become a feminist teacher. All of them, as a rule, rethink their own experience, the experience of the author or author: I took such and such a course, and this is what I came to and learned as a result of this course.

And one more very important thing. This scheme works if we understand that feminism is not only about women, or more than about women. Feminism is not only about inequality, or more than inequality. If we understand that feminism is about power... It is about power and how this power can be seen and how it can be resisted. And then, if I am a feminist, I become an intersectional feminist, i.e. I am a feminist who is simultaneously anti-racist, anti-colonialist, anti-homophobic and other “anti-”. I can't practice my feminism narrowly, only in relation to women, but I see where other inequalities occur and work with them too.

“In this sense, a feminist teacher is not just one who works with girls, for girls, or supports girls, but one who understands how society works, what the global distributions of power and inequality are.”

I will now briefly talk about the principles of feminist pedagogy. If you start looking, finding out what it is, what the basic principles are, how feminist teaching can be conceptualized, then here it is: on the left is a column that says “patriarchal pedagogies,” on the right is “feminist pedagogies.” They are contrasted with each other in several lines. For example, in patriarchal pedagogy, a teacher is an expert, a bearer of knowledge. Students are understood as empty heads into which something needs to be invested. In feminist pedagogy this does not work, both teachers and students (in a general sense) are understood as people working together to produce knowledge. The relationship of power is built differently, it is a more egalitarian work.

“Patriarchal pedagogies are dominant and authoritarian, while feminist ones are egalitarian and based on communities, on group work, on the spirit of communities”

Patriarchal pedagogies mainly use lectures as the main method of teaching, while feminist pedagogies use discussions, workshops and other interactive methods. In patriarchal pedagogies, all forms of control, no, education itself is divorced from the students, i.e. no one is interested in the actual experience of being a student. There is a high science of theory - we teach, we pass, we move on. Feminist pedagogies, on the contrary, are very concerned that the real experience of students is included in the content of education, i.e. so that the knowledge is alive and somehow connected to them personally. And finally, in patriarchal pedagogies the classroom is not felt as a safe place, it is rather a place of fear and discipline. And feminist educators work to make it a safer, more pleasant, comfortable place, and, again, respect and take into account the experience and personal expertise of each student.

Do you want to ask a question? Thank you, you anticipated my next comment. With your permission I will continue.

Next, I wanted to tell you that when I was preparing for an interview for the next internship, I studied with a teacher for this in English, improved my spoken English. And so the English teacher, an American, a man, looked at this sign of mine, became terribly indignant and said that there was nothing feminist in the right column. It's just good teaching. That he does everything in the right column, but he is never a feminist, he is even against feminism, categorically against it, but he does all this because he is a good teacher. This is indeed a very important question: after all, if you look at what is now published in magazines or books on pedagogy, you will see that teachers and professors are advised in every possible way to use this right column. For what, for what purpose? To improve the effectiveness of education. Yes, because it has been proven that such education is more effective. To improve your rating to get a better grade. Therefore, here we come to an important conclusion.

We cannot say for sure that this is an example of feminist pedagogy based only on how it looks. If we walk into a classroom and see a wonderful, friendly, gentle teacher, everyone is sitting in a circle, working in groups, discussing, engaging with everyone's experiences, everyone feels relaxed, comfortable, we cannot say with certainty whether this is a feminist class or not. . This is one of the conditions of the feminist class for it to look like this, but it is not exhaustive. What else is needed, was the question. How is this different from regular good teaching? Here I must appeal to the book by Paulo Freire, which is called “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. It has not yet been translated into Russian, although it was published in 1968 in Portuguese, in 1971 in English, i.e. actually 45 years ago. And Paulo Freire, the Brazilian philosopher of education, put forward the idea that by changing the form of education, we can do more than just make education better, more humane, more interesting or more profitable. We can, no less, change the social system. Paulo Freire participated in the anti-colonial struggle, and for him this particular issue was very acute. He was not a feminist, but he believed that if we want to raise a generation of free people who will overthrow the empire and build a free democratic society, we must start by changing the way we teach. And so Paulo Freire introduced the idea that changing shape could have very strong revolutionary potential.

“If we add another idea to this form, for example, feminist, or anti-homophobia education, or anti-racist education, then together with this form from the left column we can achieve the result”

There is another very significant book for my topic, for feminist pedagogies. Its author is bell hooks, an American writer, feminist, and philosopher of education. Her book is called “Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom,” and bell hooks considers herself a student of Paulo Freire. However, she is very critical of Freire as a person who did not see sexism and inequality based on gender. In her book she develops his ideas in a feminist direction. This is a very important book for feminist pedagogies, it appeared in 1994 and it also has not been translated into either Russian or Ukrainian language, except for one single chapter, taken out of context and poorly translated.

When I came to America, I started reading books and articles, and at some point I felt overwhelmed by a mountain of books and articles, with a lot of good ones. smart people describe very different practices. And it all seemed very chaotic, and made me feel the need to classify this whole array of feminist pedagogies. I understand that classifications are practices of establishing power, I have read Foucault, however, I use it as a temporary working tool to organize the array. I came across a very interesting version of the classification, which was invented by the American feminist Berenice Malka Fisher and published in 2007 in an article where she identifies four possible types of feminist pedagogies, depending on what goal is set by the teacher or lecturer. The first is feminist teaching for equality, where "equality" is the key word. The second is care-based pedagogies, where the key word is “care.” Third - feminist pedagogies of group resistance, key words - “group resistance”, resistance as a group practice, i.e. not individual, but group, when we do something together. And fourth, feminist pedagogies of deconstruction, the key word being “deconstruction.” In this classification, for those of you familiar with the history of feminism or feminisms, many things may seem familiar. For example, we can say that feminist teaching for equality is very consonant with the liberal idea that women and men should be equal and the same conditions should be created for them. As part of this strategy, information about women could be taken and included in the curriculum, or curriculum. This applies to many sciences, history first of all, but children should also know about outstanding women physicists, chemists, etc. Or, in general, introduce into the educational material what the so-called women's history explores - the unknown specific female experience, the experiences of different historical periods. Now a very interesting book has been published in Ukraine about different women’s experiences during the Second World War. About how women experienced the period of occupation, what experience they had of participating in the underground partisan movement, in military operations, being in the status of osterbeiters, etc. These are whole huge layers of history that are being studied. And in line with this paradigm of feminist pedagogies of equality, they should also be included in the curriculum.

“Children should know not only about how some princes fought, cut off each other’s heads and established power, but also about what women did at that time.”

This also provides for equal access to all types of education - I don’t know how it is in Belarus, but in Ukraine, universities still have specialties that women are not officially accepted into. For example, the specialty “Firefighting” or many military specialties. This must be eliminated. Equal treatment for everyone. Where we measure the teacher's pause with a stopwatch after the question asked, the attitude should be equal, call everyone the same, call everyone by first name or last name, so that there is no difference in attitude. And debunk stereotypes - a word that I don’t use in my work, but within the framework of this strategy is very relevant - to explain to children that inequality is bad, discrimination is bad, sexism is bad, laughing at it is bad, but this, this and this is good.

The caring strategy is very consonant with the ideas of cultural feminism, where we recognize that men and women are very different. It doesn’t matter whether it’s from nature or due to socialization. And then we also recognize that women are in the worst situation, unfavorable, and we begin to take care of women. You know, I’ve met teachers in Ukraine who don’t use the words “feminist pedagogy,” but when I talk to them, they say: “I support the girls, I know how hard it will be for them later. I know how difficult it will be for them in the labor market. I support the girls, I help them, I do extra work, I raise their grades.” Let’s not argue whether inflating ratings is support or not, nevertheless, this is such a strategy, but it is also the creation of special places of safety. For example, it was cultural feminism and fempedagogy of care that began to ask the question: “Tell me, are the places where women’s toilets are located safe or not? Is it safe to access them? Is this really a place where women can feel safe?” I was told about one of the Ukrainian universities, where access to the women's toilet passes through a very long, narrow and dark corridor with some niches, in each of which someone can stand, hide, or do something. And students from this university tell me that it was on the way to the women's toilet that they saw the largest number of exhibitionists in their lives. This is at the university, on the university premises. This could also be a problem.

Feminist pedagogies of resistance. This is more like radical feminism when we say that there is a global gender order, it is called patriarchy. And it permeates all spheres of our society, personal, private. It is exercised through direct power and through discursive power. And only together, together, when we begin to unite in groups, in alliances, can we do something about it. And here begins a very serious criticism of the institution of education itself, which may look a little strange. We sit in our university, in our classroom, and criticize this same university, this same administration, and say that the university is misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, and how can we fight this, being at the same university. This is such a more radical practice.

And the fourth practice. The word "deconstruction" clearly marks a postmodern or poststructuralist way of thinking, where we begin to question identities. Discussing this with your students and questioning your own identity, understanding it as more fluid, changing and not making it a central object for solidarity, activism or research, but focusing more on how regimes work. And here, too, the idea arises that it is not necessary or not enough to see, criticize or prohibit sexism, but that it is necessary to create a new discourse and redefine concepts. This is a poststructuralist way of seeing the situation.

“And now I want to take a small step aside, pause the conversation about feminist pedagogies and talk about pedagogies related to LGBT rights and the fight against homophobia.”

A very important and interesting book was written in America by an activist and teacher named Kevin Kumashiro, called “Troubling Education.” And the subtitle of this book is “Queer Activism and Anti-Oppressive Pedagogy.” Anti-Oppressive is something directed against oppression. Here I couldn’t come up with an adequate translation either into Russian or Ukrainian - maybe some of you can, I’m ready to enter into a discussion. I just sketched out anti-oppressive pedagogies. Kevin Kumashiro is an LGBT activist, a queer activist, that's what he calls himself. And he talks about how LGBT activism can be introduced into education, in what form. And he, oddly enough, offers four strategies.

He calls the first “education about others.” I myself do not use the vocabulary of “others” in my work, but Kumashiro uses it - others - so I simply copy it. When, for example, within the framework of LGBT or oppressive pedagogies, we begin to include information about LGBT people, movements, and events in the curriculum. When the Stonewall uprising and liberation movements are studied in a history course, you need to tell children about composers and poets without hesitation, and also talk about their personal lives, etc., i.e. include information about LGBT people on an equal basis, as about the majority, in the curriculum. And in the same way, create equal conditions and, of course, not produce any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The second strategy is “education for others,” when we, for example, create some special educational programs or simply islands of safety for LGBT youth, youth or children, as is done, for example, in American schools, where there are islands of safety for LGBT, queer teenagers, boys and girls if they are being bullied or feel unsafe at school.

The third strategy is “education that problematizes privilege and exclusion.” Do you know the word "inventing"? I don’t remember who, it seems, one of the Kyiv activists came up with the word “innovation” in Russian, which in English sounds like othering. Othering as action, making others. In Ukrainian, this word is very successfully translated as “inshuvannya”. “Inshuvannya” is making someone different. So, within the framework of the third strategy, Kumashiro says that the very fact of inventing can be criticized. Every time we separate someone, call him different, it means that we establish relations of inequality between us, relations of the dominant majority and subordinate others. But you don’t have to do this. This is where the problem may be rooted.

The third strategy is more radical education. It's about how inference works. And here contradictions begin between the first, second and third, because in the first and second we say: “Here, children, there are gays, there are lesbians. They are just like us. They are different, but they are the same as us." And this slogan will work - different, but equal. We are all different, but we should all be equal. But in the third strategy, we begin to say that the very concept of “gay” appears - it was not always there - in the 19th century in order to separate the norm from the non-norm, that in its very inception an act of exception from the norm is carried out. And this is a little bit of queer theory, a little bit of Foucault and post-Foucault, but the question can also be posed this way.

“It is not that others appear first, and then they become unequal, but others appear when there is already inequality.”

Those. the very fact of distortion is a consequence of inequality and serves for naturalization, so that this inequality looks natural, as it seems to be necessary. The idea that deception is a tool of power, of establishing power, may sound quite new, but these are the ideas of queer theory, which was created in the West and which is not translated and little known here.

Why did I pause feminist pedagogies and start talking about anti-oppressive pedagogies? Because, in my opinion, they are very consonant in these epistemological positions. Then I created this sign. The first type of feminist pedagogies is pedagogies of equality. And the first type of anti-oppressive pedagogy in Kumashiro’s terminology is “education” about others. It's a very similar type of thinking where we say, “Yes, there are different identities, there are different people, there are different groups. If we are progressive people, we need to recognize our differences but ensure everyone has equal rights.” This is the liberal way. The path of changing legislation and the path of education, enlightenment and the fight against so-called stereotypes. When we talk, we have stereotypes about women, about LGBT people, about the Roma population, about non-white people, etc. This is one epistemological platform: we recognize difference, yes, but we maintain equality and fight stereotypes. The second box is when we talk about feminist pedagogies of care or “education for others.” We still recognize that everyone is different, but the relationship between them is unequal, there are dominant groups, privileged, and there are oppressed groups, let's call them oppressed. Our job is to support oppressed groups. The first is not enough; we also need to support oppressed groups and do something for them separately. For example, we have oppressed groups - the Roma population. Yes, we are creating equal rights, but perhaps we should direct some of our efforts specifically at this group, understanding the disadvantage they are in relative to the majority. The same applies to women, although this is not a minority statistically, it is a subordinate group. The same applies to LGBT people, etc. The third cell is another epistemology, when we look more radically at how society and inequality are structured, and we understand that only education, only good laws, only the fight against stereotypes is not enough for us. And that all the great advances that were made in relation to subordinate groups, for example, advances in women's rights, in LGBT rights, occurred as a result of serious group actions, up to uprisings, as was the case at Stonewall, or mass demonstrations and manifestations, as was the case during second wave of feminism, etc. The point is that the first and second are not enough, the third is needed. What unites the first, second and third is that we still think in terms of identity. Identity as something more or less stable and something around which community and solidarity are formed. What Valery spoke about today at his lecture. It is politically important to be called gay because it is the basis for the formation of a political group for political struggle. Not just like that, I want to call myself, I want to not call myself, but for the sake of fighting. And here we are still working in terms of identity. Decide who you are, if you belong to a subordinate group, fight, unite with people like you, stand in solidarity with other oppressed groups. If you suddenly discover that you belong to a dominant group but want to be a good man- recognize your privileges, face the truth and start fighting for the rights of the oppressed. This is how alliances are formed, for example, gay straight alliances in America, in American schools or universities. These are very important places where people come who do not identify themselves with LGBT or any other letters from this possible list and say about themselves: I am an absolute straight, but it is wrong when people are beaten, humiliated, kicked out of work and discriminated against just because that they love “not so”, and I’m ready to fight for it, I’m ready to go to demonstrations for it, print leaflets and everything that needs to be done.

But the fourth strategy, whether for feminism or for anti-oppressive pedagogies, is a strategy that involves a very serious shift in our thinking towards postmodern, post-structuralist thinking, when we begin to question the concept of identity. When we say: wait, every time we produce identities and every time we build groups based on these identities, we are doing good for someone...

“But every time a group is formed based on identity, some other people are excluded and some new inequalities begin to build.”

And every time we fight for the rights of the oppressed and do something, as it seems to us, very good, we do something not very good, because every advance in the struggle for the rights of oppressed groups within identities produces new others, new oppressed and new exceptions. One example: there is now a very heated discussion around a new film about the Stonewall events, which turned out to be quite transphobic in content and mood. Second example: the legalization of same-sex marriage in America. This is nothing more than, as Lisa Duggan called it, homonormativity, the construction of yet another normativity. Now normative LGBT people are those who are married, because marriage is already allowed. Well, what if there are three of them? Or they have a polyamorous family, or an unregistered relationship, or an unstable relationship, what then? And then there are good gays and bad gays.

The postmodern way of thinking is queer theory, when the concept of identity is questioned, when the postmodern way of thinking comes into education and begins to integrate into the structure of education, and at the same time undermine it. For example, a teacher like me appears and begins to experiment with forms of education, ways of thinking about education. This then can be called feminist pedagogies of deconstruction, but it can also be called queer pedagogies, because this is what is consonant with queer theory.

And, literally, the last word. Sweden has another interesting way of thinking and doing education. It is called norm-critical pedagogy, i.e. critical of norms, of normativity. In essence, they are very similar to queer pedagogy, but the creators of this term deliberately abandoned the word “queer” and came up with their own name. These are global educational strategies, from kindergarten to the university, which problematize norms. Not in the sense of “let’s abandon norms and everything will be fine with us,” but in Butler’s sense: that norms are constantly reproduced in society, but norms can change, and if some norms are eroded, then others may appear. However, a critical attitude to norms and normativity, to this development, makes it possible to create a more just society, at least within an educational institution. A completely radical approach in Sweden was adopted by almost the majority of schools and educational institutions and was approved by the ministry (well, they call it not the Ministry of Education, but the education agency) for one very simple reason: the first pilot projects showed the very high effectiveness of norm-critical education to prevent bullying in schools, e.g. situations where some children bully others. This happens not because someone doesn’t like someone, but because “others” are being bullied. Different by gender, by sexuality, by skin color, by origin, by economic wealth, etc. And when the entire school and the entire apparatus shows children that the norms are constructed, accordingly, they can be deconstructed, accordingly, these developments may not occur: let's see together how it works. And this turns out to be a very productive bullying prevention strategy. Although I see this as having much greater potential to undermine the power that permeates all educational institutions. I think I can put a picture in this place. This is the cover of a book published by a public LGBT organization; it includes a lot of different exercises on how to work in line with a norm-critical approach, called “Break the norms.” This is a very important example, and in general the concept of norm-critical pedagogy itself is the result of a very close collaboration between the activist and academic communities. And when they work together, and the same people are activists, and academics, and scientists, and activists again, and they go there, and then they teach, write dissertations, and then again participate in a public organization. I have seen a lot of such people. And this is the most productive and most good way, when academia and activism become welded together. Then something good and interesting comes out of it.

That's probably all for now. Let's talk.

Thanks a lot. And now we will really talk. If you have any questions, I’ll just hand you the microphone. This will be much more convenient than shouting from the audience.

Thank you very much, my question is very practical, very specific as a teacher. Today during the lecture a situation arose when there were several remarks from the audience, you began to answer them, and the moderator interrupted these answers, transferring what was happening back to the lecture format. And this situation can be understood in two ways. On the one hand, she, using the microphone and moderator power, reproduced patriarchal pedagogy. On the other hand, we heard that all the remarks from the audience, if I heard correctly, came from men, and one of them interrupted your replica. The other question relates to what you were going to say. We know from sociolinguistics that men more often do not listen, interrupt more often, and ask questions more often without giving a signal. How to choose between two evils in a teaching situation? Do they write about this or maybe you know in practice how to resolve this situation when we seem to be able to experiment with the form of teaching, move away from a monologue into a polylogue, a discussion, but on the other hand, there is a risk of letting men take over the space of discussion. Thank you.

Olga Plakhotnik: You know, again, unfortunately, you need to speak languages to read. A lot has been written good articles about how to work with an audience where, for example, male and female students study, and where, already as adults or almost adults, they demonstrate some learned forms of behavior. And I myself came across this when I was an observer during classes, for example, at an American university, how often it was young men or men who seized power, figuratively speaking, in the classroom. And how to work with this, so as not to use brute force or prohibition, which, in general, is also not good, and what to do about it? I don't have an answer to this question. In general, I don’t have very much power to resolve this situation. I have power as a teacher or lecturer, but I don't look like a man. This is probably the point. If this were my class, where I teach, and the circumstances were favorable, I would probably suggest thinking together or observing what is happening so that everyone would notice it. Again, for some men it will remain unprofitable to admit their privileges, to say: no, you’re making it all up, you’re making it up. But I also know that there are men willing to work with their privilege and stand in solidarity with feminists and other forms of activism. I also know that when I work in a classroom where, for example, there are only boys or only girls, they immediately build their own hierarchies, based on a different criterion. For example, I once worked in a classroom where there were only girls, and I had a course on gender theory. The students were very interested, but the audience during all classes was dominated by one student who was married. And everyone else was unmarried. And when it came to gender, about what gender theory is in their understanding (about men, women and relationships - in their understanding), the girl, who is married, immediately took an expert position. They listened to her very much, and she very happily took advantage of this, sharing her experience of gender practices in family life. This is a very important question to think about.

- Thank you very much for the lecture, but, to be honest, it somewhat disappointed me. I myself have been studying radical pedagogy for a long time, but without a focus on feminism, rather with a focus on anarchist, libertarian experiments. What disappointed me was precisely that, in general, there was a conformist institutional form. I'm more interested in the radical, anarchist side that exists outside of institutions and leads to a radical subversion of the existing order. Because in the end, all universities, even American ones, are associated with the reproduction of certain privileges. After all, only certain privileged people can study in them. And, accordingly, only people of a certain socio-economic level have access to this freedom. What about projects that lead to some kind of radical changes to the existing order? One of the main anarchist theses states that education must radically change the very structure of society. Not just any specific aspect, like sexuality.

Olga Plakhotnik: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, all my presentations are called radical pedagogies, but along the way you became convinced that some of them are more radical, some a little less. Although the same liberal feminist pedagogies can contextually cause a scandal in some very provincial or very conservative university. I planned, if everything went very quickly for us, to watch the trailer of a fairly popular film called “Mona Lisa Smile.” Maybe you remember main character- a teacher, played by the wonderful Julia Roberts, she came to teach art history in the 60s at a women's college. And she just dared not just to talk about what kinds of art, artists, paintings there are, but also to pose the question “What is art?” For female students. The students didn’t know this, and it’s not written in the textbook. And who decides where art begins and ends? As a result, she was kicked out of college, i.e. Such a formulation of the question itself in a certain context may sound extremely radical. Anarchist pedagogies are still little known in our area, but, as far as I know, anarchist activism, for example, in Ukraine, is really very close to queer and anarcho-feminism, it has such a very serious queer theoretical component. I think modern anarchist pedagogies are on a par with queer, norm-critical pedagogies. And it also seems to me that they are not always possible or necessary within educational institutions. Or maybe it makes sense, as Freire wrote about this, to create educational platforms outside of educational institutions, so that even the spirit of this does not exist on the new site.

- Hello, thanks for the lecture. This is what haunts me. You mentioned such practices as protecting the weak, roughly speaking, when the teacher, understanding the possibly difficult future of girls and graduates, gave them all sorts of concessions. But in this way we are raising a whole generation of oppressed people who will then go somewhere else. We know that most European universities now have an MBA program with lower scores for women than for men. In fact, we are raising this generation of oppressed people. And this is a paradox, because there is no equality, there are still groups that have concessions and there are groups that have a little more privileges. It's a vicious circle, we don't come to anything new. Don't you find this really paradoxical? What can you do about it? And are there any alternative ways?

Olga Plakhotnik: I will clarify. Can a situation of quotas, for example, political ones, be considered something parallel to concessions? For example, women's quotas in the party or parliament. Okay, it's not really that important. I remembered quotas because I get asked about them often. A couple of years ago I participated in the writing of a textbook for female undergraduate students, it was published in Ukrainian and was called “Gender for Media: Foundations of Gender Theory”, there was a large chapter about quotas. We co-authored, co-edited, and we thought and debated a lot and came to this idea: no measure, no step in the feminist struggle and any other struggle of the oppressed can be considered final and cannot be unambiguously good. Every time we do something and succeed, we need to begin to look critically at this measure and understand what new exclusions and oppressions it produces. In the same way, you can talk about so-called affirmative action or concessions, as you call it, that are established for representatives of oppressed groups in developed democracies, when society looks at people and says: “Oh, we have a group of people who are oppressed and who have There were always fewer resources, which were always in a worse situation. Let us help them specifically, for example, by setting a special quota or a lower passing score.” This can be any group, not just women. This could be the Roma population, it could be migrants, and so on. But sound policy is that no measure is a) uniquely and forever effective; b) finally problem solving. And no measure can turn into a source of exceptions and new oppression. Think and remain vigilant always. Whatever good we come up with, we need to be prepared that tomorrow it may cease to be good or seem good to us.

- A few short questions at once, please, maybe answer. A commonplace is calls for the demasculinization of education and some sectors of activity. In America, for example, works were published about the fact that men are beginning to run away from those areas of activity where women are expected to dominate. It seems to me that you understand that the problem is resolved by this postmodernist approach, i.e. There’s no need to do this, is it that all sorts of politicians from education, science, and so on pose the question incorrectly? Or how do you feel about this? This is a commonplace, they constantly shout that there are no men in secondary education, preschool, or in some other professions. And it is not necessary? Or let him? Quotas won't help - they don't go there.

Olga Plakhotnik: Thanks for your series of questions. I will try to crystallize three of them and answer them in turn. In reverse order - which policies are more effective, which ones work and which ones don’t work. The main idea of my presentation today was that there are different types of feminist pedagogies, or anti-oppressive pedagogies, but none of them taken separately can solve problems. And the same Kevin Kumashiro, for example, writes all the time about how important it is for all four to work. Maybe even one teacher, one teacher implements it, floats from one to another, but so that all four strategies work, because all four are needed and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Question one. You said that men are fleeing areas where women are beginning to dominate. Establishing cause-and-effect relationships is also not a neutral process, but a political one. And I would redefine this pattern in such a way that money begins to flow out of some areas, wages go down there or rise everywhere, but they don’t rise. Therefore, men leave there for better-paid areas, and women come to fill the vacant positions. This is how the economy works. And it's abstract. Those areas where wages are low or where wages are being reduced are feminized. The percentage of men in areas where wages are rising is masculinizing or increasing. And the third question is school. This is a completely separate issue, because the panic around the fact that there are no men in schools or there are fewer of them there is scary interest Ask. What's the problem? Well, the percentage of men is decreasing. So what? Well, the salaries there are small, we can explain that. But such a statement of the problem can also cause very, I would say, heterosexist and misogynistic rhetoric: “Well, of course, men are needed at school. After all, children will not see men and will not know, especially boys, how to behave.” It's as if the men in school are the only ones who determine whether boys will act like "boys." A huge number of panics can arise around the problem of men at school, also heterosexist and homophobic or others. So we can ask why this is bad. Don't women demonstrate the full spectrum of gender behavior, from masculinity to extreme femininity, from strictness to softness? Is this really not enough? This is a very interesting question and a very interesting problem. It's interesting to think about. I'm not going to answer whether this is good or bad, I'm just saying that the very formulation of the problem can sound very political and very telling.

- Another small rhetorical question, as if on the right, although I’m sitting on the left. There Kumashiro said that any knowledge should be considered as situational. In my opinion, this is some kind of vulgar anarchist approach that destroys the idea of education. What do you think about this? So we can't do feminist and queer approaches in education unless we are caricatures of Paul Feierabend or something like that?

Olga Plakhotnik: Who is Feyrabend?

And this is so German...

Olga Plakhotnik:...film director?

No, this is a German philosopher who, according to epistemology, put forward similar problems, but not in such a vulgar form as this Kumashiro.

Olga Plakhotnik: Thank you for your compliment. In the Anglo-American academy, the term situated knowledge is very well established, and goes back to at least two feminist theorists. These are Donna Harraway and Sarah Harding, who were engaged in feminist epistemology, and who showed, or undermined, so to speak, faith in the possibility of neutral apolitical objective knowledge. Today the idea of situated knowledge is being developed very powerfully in so-called post-constructionist feminist theory. Again Donna Harraway, Karen Barad. And very serious works on feminist epistemology are now being written in Scandinavia (Sweden), and in the Netherlands there is also a very serious school working on this topic (at Utrecht University). This is very interesting to think about and, of course, this is one of the center lines Queer theories - understand knowledge as socially constructed, as historical, contextual and political. This is Foucault and the works of post-Fucauldian authors, i.e. This is not vulgar voluntarism, this is very serious theoretical problem.

Both I and many theoreticians proceed from the fact that there are many feminisms, many feminist epistemologies. And we shouldn't compete about which epistemology is correct, we just need to understand from what place we are speaking. We must understand very well the epistemological position of our speaking and research.

- Thank you for lectures, for information. Tsudouna, why are you here and I can listen to you. Mayo tried to date the adukatsy ў dzitsyachym garden. For me, the geta itself became uncharted, where I was working in a small garden. At the end of the day, there won’t be much trouble there. On the right, that I’m not just empty in the group, they told me that I’m a peacock, I’m not able to jump. The first time it happened in the garden. I couldn’t talk to him in the group. All the same, it came there, and I have to say hello. They all sat down on the chairs, and they all cried. And they told me that this is normal, I will cry for the New Year. I was not allowed to speak to the control room, because other people will think why the hell is my mother, but others don’t sit down, and they don’t know that I am a mother. In other words, I was simply terrified, because in my earlier days this was not the case, i.e. The situation has gotten worse. And when I went to pray, I fell and the mistresses of the riddle of the garden, I prayed with me, the magistrates of the nekarektna and lumached me then, when I brought the riddle to a greater level, because I simply don’t want to deal with It's a hell of a sir, but it's a hell of a job once and for all nazaўsyody, there is a dzitsya tsyaper - geta dzitsya ўstanovy, not my. And there, I realized that the problem was growing with the planting. Dzetsi, yak yashche nyama three bastards, sit and cry and New Year. Their fathers and mothers cannot go there. I was confused that this is the situation and practice in all school settings in our republic. And if I said that there are other practices in other countries, I would rather move to other countries if I don’t like it. To such people, I have learned the root of the problem of our civil society. How can the supratsiў settle in the dzitsyachym garden be brought out? Who?

Olga Plakhotnik: Jakui for your torture. Thanks for the question. Of course, I really sympathize with you. Naturally, you have already torn the child from your heart and given him to this factory. In fact, this is difficult to avoid. Although, of course, if you know, in the 70-80s a very powerful movement appeared, a theoretical, intellectual movement, which was called critical pedagogy, and which seriously criticized educational institutions as factories for the production of citizens. And the idea of a society without schools appeared. I know for sure that in Ukraine the percentage of children who do not go to school and are home-schooled is now growing at a very high rate, because their progressive parents do not want to send their child to a factory that produces citizens, and want to educate their child at home. And there are legal mechanisms that regulate this. In Sweden, the ideas of norm-critical pedagogies I mentioned are being implemented in kindergartens. Is it possible in our state kindergarten do this [offer a more critical and humane education]? Only in the form of activism of individual educators and teachers. If they want it and it interests them. At the level of law, such things probably cannot be established anywhere, because after all, the state is a machine that needs citizens who have undergone proper processing through the factory. But you know, in Kharkov I helped conduct trainings for teachers and kindergarten teachers, and we had a group of teachers from ordinary kindergartens who were excited about the idea of the most liberal version of fempedagogy, returned to their state kindergartens and first of all mixed toys, removed the boundaries between play areas (before that there were separate areas for girls and boys). They, at least, have internalized the idea that segregating children for games and activities means building relations of inequality between them, all these patriarchal things. They did something at the level of their civic activism, came up with non-sexist holidays, some inclusive events, and so on. My greatest faith is faith in individual activists, enthusiasts, educators, teachers, teachers, for whom their work is their own activism. And when there are many of them, when this critical mass grows, then educational institutions will begin to change. Or alternative ones will be created, and the old ones will be forced to compete with the alternative ones and will also begin to change. The market may turn on here, but in what way, we don’t know, the market is a tricky thing.

- Olga, thank you very much. I was very interested in listening in the context of your speech at the conference in 2013 in St. Petersburg. And it's really interesting to watch your understanding develop. Very cool, I hope to read the publications. The question came to me recently because I had simply never encountered this side of the education system before. I mean such special educational institutions as, for example, choreographic schools and circus schools. Where pedagogy is no longer concerned with knowledge, but more with bodily training. Do you know of any publications about understanding teaching experience in such educational institutions from a feminist position, because I was also involved in feminist pedagogy and at one time I did not come across any publications on this topic. And are there any considerations, because physical training, as we understand it, differs from intellectual training.

Olga Plakhotnik: Thank you very much, Valery, for your question. I have not seen such publications. I can fantasize a little on this topic, or rather, not exactly fantasize, but I am sure that when the focus of education shifts from intellectual development to bodily development within the framework of biodeterminism, which tells us that people are born either men or women, and their gender determines then their behavior and role, then there will be much more such biodeterminism in body training. The same probably applies to sports. Sport is a powerful institution for gendering people, specifically human bodies. This is carried out starting from the level of children's sections and ending Olympic Games and sex determination tests for female athletes. Feminist practices of resistance... I don’t know, maybe we need to look, maybe somewhere someone is working with this a little bit. If I come across it, I will forward it to you.

I will briefly add to the answer. In fact, if Valery is interested, I can send you my master’s thesis, which was dedicated to professional acting education. It’s not so much about possible feminist practices, but more about how this system shapes a “creative personality.” And it's crazy, it's scary and total. And this is about the experience of the post-Soviet space, because it is a common theatrical experience.

- Thanks again for the lecture. I have a question. You mentioned that now there is a shift away from gender and feminist movements, changes including in education, i.e. This trend is also observed in Sweden, where they are most widely used. In your opinion, what is the reason for this? What reasons and perhaps further trends do you observe?

Olga Plakhotnik: Thanks for the question. I think that the world is still not homogeneous and the trends are slightly different. I talked about America, meaning the United States and feminist pedagogies, their development and intensity, and feminist movements. Probably, my generalization can be slightly expanded to Western Europe, too, talking about neopatriarchy, or neoliberalism and the new patriarchy, i.e. patriarchal rollback, which is demonstrated, which is actually happening now in the United States and in many countries of Western Europe, almost without exception. You all know how one after another in different countries right-wing parties come to power. You are now reading about anti-migrant panics. You can also imagine that in the same year that same-sex marriage was legalized in every state in the United States, several states banned abortion. And we can say that while LGBT rights are slowly, step by step, gaining strength and making at least a little progress in different places, then women's rights, especially women's reproductive rights, are losing ground, and this is due to the new patriarchy and the weakening of the feminist movement in general. And, accordingly, feminist pedagogies and feminist interventions in education are weakened. There is a very interesting Polish researcher Agnieszka Graf. She wrote the book “A World Without Women,” describing how women, shoulder to shoulder with men, achieved Poland’s independence as part of the Solidarity movement. And as soon as Poland became independent, Solidarity won, the next step was that the Polish parliament banned abortion and pushed women out of the ranks of political subjects. Therefore, Agnieszka Graf put forward the idea that women's rights and gender issues are the last bastion. LGBT people will get all rights, people of color will get all rights, transgender people, whoever, and women's reproductive rights will be the last bastion. So far, the way changes are moving on the world map with reproductive rights proves this.

- You said that you adhere to intersubjective feminism. And now you say that there are women and there are lesbians, there are women and there are black women, there are women and transgender women, i.e. This, it seems to me, contradicts each other a little.

Olga Plakhotnik: When I speak, it always sounds worse than when I write and I have time to think and build a phrase. And, probably, in some places I may be illogical. If you want, yes, I may sound counterintuitive, but I can explain that as a queer researcher, the concept of woman is problematic for me. But I use it strategically for my activism and for my work. Let's consider this strategic essentialism. I answered your question?

We all say a huge thank you. It was very cool. And on the note on which we ended - talking about women's rights, about reproductive rights - we also approached our film screening perfectly. In 30 minutes, at exactly eight o'clock, come watch a movie. Today's movie night is dedicated to the theme “My body is my business.” This is about different aspects of physicality, sexuality and everything that can be touched, looked at, seen.

Text: Elena Nizeenko

In 2016, there is still no clear consensus in society attitude towards feminism and a clear understanding of its goals and methods. Even people who generally support women's rights often believe that feminism is no longer useful, and we all live in a world of triumphant equality. But in fact, a whole clip is still relevant global problems associated with gender inequality. In many countries, the quality of life still depends on gender: both how much you can independently choose your life path, and what further opportunities society and the state provide. Let's figure out what the main problems are for women in Russia and other countries.

Violent customs

Women from different parts of the world are still subjected to humiliating and deadly procedures. Female genital mutilation seems like a distant, semi-mythical tradition, but it is carried out right on Russian territory today. Women are often mutilated in childhood: without medical indications Partial or complete removal of the external part of the genitalia. Including in unsanitary conditions, with dire consequences for health and in order to limit sexuality. They are trying to combat these practices: for example, in Russia this year they began, in other countries, like in Gambia, a legislative procedure.

Girls are married off without asking consent, including adolescence; from the family; they are used for so-called temporary marriage. Women are killed by their relatives, calling it "honor killings". Sometimes the customs of a certain area contradict the law - alas, this is the very case when the position “this is how it is” becomes as if legal. These practices are usually considered religious, although they are not always embedded in religion.

Modern feminism also fights for women to be able to independently manage their lives and their bodies, and the fight against violent customs is one of its important tasks.

Gender gap at work

In many countries, the ideas of career equality are formally widespread: each person is free to decide for himself how he wants to work and whether he needs it at all. But in practice, gender still has a significant impact on career opportunities. The main pillars of gender inequality are: the wage gap between men and women (its index today is still non-zero in all countries); "glass ceiling", and the fact that women and men need to put in unequal effort for the same job.

Russian legislation prohibits indicating the desired gender of a candidate in vacancies, but some employers still consider men primarily for positions. And the texts of vacancies for girls may contain details that are not related to professional qualities. In some countries, there are still lists of professions prohibited for women; At the same time, according to the World Bank, in Russia women face the largest number of career restrictions in the world - 456 types of work are prohibited for them. The ban on more of them for Russian women, solely for the supposed harm to reproductive health, is largely the result of policies that prioritize women's having a child. During interviews and during the work process, women often experience other difficulties - they face harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. In addition, women often have to work while caring for children. Workspaces are often completely unsuited for mothers.

The attitude “men are naturally more ambitious, more capable and should earn more than women” prevents one from accepting a common thought: the division into “male” and “female” in careers is far-fetched and only perpetuates the unequal distribution of power in society. Feminism pays attention to the systemic laws by which this inequality operates, how it interferes with work in certain areas, and the skewed positions in which men, by default, have more points at the start.

Reproductive violence

The decision to give birth or not should belong to the woman herself, but supporters refuse to give them this opportunity. Opponents of abortion believe that there can be no justification for terminating a pregnancy, and they strive to protect, first of all, the unborn child, and not the rights, life and health of the woman herself. But pro-life advocates and government representatives of anti-abortion policies often overlook how official government rhetoric differs from the reality of motherhood support. The simple idea that there is an abyss between a desired pregnancy and a pregnancy resulting from rape is also often proliferated.

The historical experience of banning abortions is that in this case their number is not reduced, but they are carried out illegally and often with tragic consequences. But from sex education and accessible contraception - yes. In attempts to deprive women of the right to an abortion and oblige them to forcibly give birth to children, the idea is lost that the desire to leave women without the right to choose is violence against them.

Rape

There is a lot of violence in our society, and it is important to find strength in ourselves about it. This is a scary and everyday problem, but although it is not new, the language for discussing it is only now emerging. From childhood, women are taught measures that supposedly should help protect themselves from violence: they are told how dangerous it is to talk to strangers, hitchhike, go out for a walk late at night, travel alone, go to disadvantaged areas unaccompanied, and drink alcohol. This is the most difficult quest to avoid rape, which is impossible to complete, since it misses the main thing: control over the situation is always on the side of the rapist, and even if all safety conditions are met, the risks of being raped are equally high, regardless of the length of the skirt and the time of day.

There are still no accurate statistics on rape (victims are often afraid to talk about their experiences), and this topic itself is surrounded by various myths: from the existence of some kind of “correct”, “safe” clothing, to the idea that only a stranger can be a rapist , - although very often victims face violence from acquaintances and even close people. Another huge problem of a culture of violence is shifting blame and shame onto the victim (“it’s your own fault”).

Feminism brings the problem of sexual violence out of the shadows, calls for discussion and solution. It's not easy to take on this, but it's important to start - create support networks for women, safe spaces where you can speak out and get real help. The main thing we need to come to is an unconditional condemnation of violence and an understanding that the problem is acute not only in unstable, non-peaceful and poor regions, but throughout the world.

Sexual exploitation

Trafficking in women and children takes the bulk of the multi-million dollar annual human trafficking. As the international coalition against trafficking in women notes, 87% of victims are victims of sexual exploitation. To solve the problem, measures are proposed that have been justified or discredited to varying degrees - from the criminalization of clients to the legitimization of prostitution - but the fact remains: trafficking in women is ubiquitous, although often invisible to society, and unacceptable. The current situation threatens not only women's freedom, but also their physical and psychological health - in fact, it operates under the same laws as labor slavery.

Feminism also examines how the prevailing model of society shapes the demand for sex services: in particular, why clients are mostly men, how demand is influenced by a culture of violence, and how the sex trade is embedded in the power hierarchy of the sexes. One thing is clear: the right of women to independently dispose of their own bodies must be ensured legislatively and economically, and equality cannot be achieved while a woman can be a commodity.

Discrimination against minorities

The world is permeated by different types of inequalities - everyone can experience them. Intersectional feminism addresses the intersection of different systems of oppression - essentially, this approach emphasizes that the rights of all people are important, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental state. The methods of oppression are standard and monotonous: a person is assigned to a certain category, and then this category is endowed with rights that are less than “universal” ones. Intersectionality examines how different factors - such as skin color, sexual orientation, transgender, disability - can shape the system of oppression of a particular person.

The problem of discrimination in the world is still acute: it can manifest itself both in direct violence against minorities and in... In the twenty-first century, people still do not have equal rights - so it is important to recognize and adequately assess our privileges, and also understand that each of us can belong to a minority and become a victim of discrimination. And even if this has never affected anyone personally, this does not mean that the problem does not exist - it is often closer than many realize.

Limited access to education

Gender inequality is due to a number of reasons, and limited access to education is one of them. Women are two-thirds of the world's illiterate people. According to the UN, girls often fail to receive an education because parents believe they are better off investing in boys' education; girls are supposed to do more housework, and they are more often forced to give up school to devote themselves to their family. Lack of education, in turn, does not allow women to go beyond a rather limited range of activities: their task becomes to run the house, prepare for marriage, and give birth to children. Essentially, this calls into question the fact that women can play roles other than those of mother and wife and achieve anything in the public space. And even if in a country the right to education is available to everyone by default, girls may be hampered by unspoken gender barriers and the unfriendliness of a “male” professional environment.

General characteristics of the problems of feminism

Feminism, as a set of ideological, theoretical and philosophical concepts, has become very widespread in modern conditions - feminism is often mentioned in the media, specialized literature, comprehensive gender studies are conducted, etc.

All this allowed the followers of the doctrine in question to achieve significant success in combating sexual discrimination and ensuring equality legal status men and women.

For example, all European countries currently recognize women’s rights to obtain higher education. vocational education, receiving equal pay for equal work, the right to vote and be elected, etc.

However, despite the indicated positive achievements, modern feminism is characterized by the presence of some problems and shortcomings that prevent the preservation of the positive image of feminist doctrine today.

Thus, the key problem of modern feminism in the specialized literature is recognized as its radicalization, generated by the third wave of feminism. Chronologically, the designated process can be counted from the 1990s. XX century, when the characteristics of feminism to some extent acquired an extremist coloring.

Among the specific manifestations of the identified problem are:

The retreat into the background of the classical ideas of equality for feminism;
Forming a thesis not about the equality of men and women, but about the direct superiority of the latter;
Among the acceptable methods of achieving program goals and objectives, modern feminists, unlike their predecessors, do not recognize progressive reform government structure, and a change in public consciousness in terms of transforming the appearance of men and women in social interaction, and radical social changes expressed in the destruction of classical ideas about the concept of sex, gender, traditional family, etc.

The identified factors led to a split in the feminist doctrine that had evolved over decades, diverging views of its representatives on a number of conceptual issues that once formed the main content of a holistic theory - issues of identity, gender, the fight against patriarchy, the distinction between private and public, etc.

Moreover, due to the failure to reach final agreement on the identified issues, another problem of modern feminism is its final collapse into many relatively independent movements.

Note 1

In other words, one of the main problems of both the theoretical and practical directions of feminism is the vagueness of concepts and the lack of specific goals and objectives.

Problems of the radical libertarian direction of feminism

Since, as noted above, modern feminism is largely characterized by its own radicalism, in the framework of characterizing the problems of feminism, it seems reasonable to dwell in more detail on the problems of current trends in feminist doctrine.

At the same time, an analysis of special sources allows us to note that just as classical feminism itself was not characterized by absolute uniformity and homogeneity, modern radical feminism is characterized by the presence of many relatively independent theoretical and practical directions, the main of which are considered to be radical libertarian and radical cultural feminism.

The problem of the first of these, the radical-libertarian direction of feminism, is the excessive radicalism of the program goals and the proposed ways to achieve them.

Thus, according to representatives of the approach under consideration, gender, as fundamental category feminist doctrine represents exclusively social concept, separated from the floor. However, the model of patriarchal organization of society that has existed for centuries leads to the establishment of control over women and the formation of appropriate gender frameworks.

In other words, the main oppressor is not individual representatives of the male gender, but the existing system of male domination. In this regard, representatives of radical libertarian feminism advocate fundamental changes in the institution of the family, blurring the line between fatherhood and motherhood through the implementation of the only possible, in their opinion, way to defeat the system of oppression - replacing natural reproduction with artificial one.

According to supporters of this direction, in this way, the biological nuclear family system will be destroyed, and all children will be raised collectively by the entire society.

Problems of the radical cultural direction of feminism

If the problem of the radical-libertarian direction of feminism is the desire for the complete destruction of the existing foundations of social organization, starting with the interruption of natural biological reproductive processes, then the problem of the radical-cultural direction of feminism is the call for a “sharp numerical reduction in the number of men,” which indicates a direct the rapprochement of feminism (the classical values of which were the desire to ensure equality and intergender justice) and fascism, in its desire for the physical destruction of “undesirable” social groups.

The reasons for the formation of such views are related to the fact that supporters of the considered direction of feminism argue that the reason for the dominance of men over women is actually their heterosexuality, which ultimately gives rise to psychological and physical violence of men against women.

Note 2

Based on this, if a woman wants to be completely free, she must stop all communication with men, be it physical or spiritual.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

Conclusion

List of used literature

Appendix (Questionnaire “Effectiveness of Women's Leadership”)

Introduction

The women's movement for equal rights at the beginning of the 20th century was an international phenomenon, but the scale, nature and forms of movements, as well as feminist rhetoric, were determined by specific socio-political conditions, cultural and historical traditions of a particular society.

Feminist ideas remain relevant today. Even though women have already achieved a lot, there is still no true equality in society. Politics and economics are still dominated by men, and progressive, business women are viewed with doubt. On paper, the laws proclaim equality, but in reality, the old, patriarchal foundations in the family prevail; the man still considers himself the master in the house and in society.

While writing the work, I used the works of Russian and foreign scientists: N. Novikova, A. Temkina, S. de Bouvar, S. Evans and others, as well as articles in periodicals.

Feminism in Russian historiography has long been considered part of the labor and socialist movement. This issue was not considered independently and therefore was not widely developed, hence the paucity of domestic literature. The main sources were the books “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir, “Born to Free” by Sarah Evans and the collection “Feminism: Prose, Memoirs, Letters, Essays”. Simone de Beauvoir turns in her narration to myths and legends about the “mystery of sex”, about the “mystery of the female soul”, created, in her words, by men. Sarah Evans's book reveals the life history of American women, starting from the 16th century. She writes about how the American woman has tried for a long time to change the boundaries assigned to her. Hence the explosion of social activity, which led to the creation of a number of informal associations.

The book centers on the diverse lives of American women - Native Americans, pioneers, slaves, immigrants, factory workers, mothers and housewives. The women's movement, according to Sarah Evans, is a hidden source of democratization of society. The collection includes works of different genres - essays, memoirs, letters and excerpts from works of art by famous public figures and writers - J. Sand, A. Adams, G. Ibsen, S. Anthony and others. The works included in the collection reflect the history of 150 years women's struggle for their rights - from the time of the American Revolution to the forties of the 20th century. Among the problems discussed in the collection are marriage as a tool of suppression and exploitation, a woman’s desire to manage her own freedom, and a woman’s economic dependence.

The object of the work is feminism.

Subject of work: women in modern society.

The purpose of this work is to study feminism in modern society.

identify the essence of modern feminism;

research on women in business.

Chapter 1. The essence of modern feminism

1.1 Feminism in the second half of the 20th century

The awakening, or “feminine renaissance,” began in the 60s. Its epicenter was the United States, where precisely during these years there was an intensification of democratic processes aimed at eliminating various forms of discrimination, and above all racism. The women's movement took on new, often radical forms, which is reflected in its name - “women's liberation movement”.

The new wave of the struggle for emancipation was due to structural changes in society and, above all, a significant increase in the share of female labor in social production. Thus, by 1960 in the United States, women made up more than one-third of the country's labor force, while 54% of working women were married and 33% had children, which indicates economic factors that encouraged women to join social production practices.

The feminist movement of the 60s and early 70s acquired a somewhat extravagant coloring, manifesting itself in unusual slogans and forms of expression of protest that were provocative, even shocking to the traditionally minded public. In an effort to awaken women's self-awareness and liberate public opinion from the inertia of patriarchally oriented moral attitudes, feminists used, for example, the techniques of “square theater.” The leaflets of the American organization that emerged in 1968 under the scandalous name “Witch” said: “Everything that is repressive, exclusively male, envious, puritanical and authoritarian should become the target of your criticism. Your weapon is your limitless beautiful imagination. Your strength comes from yourself as women, and it is greatly enhanced by working together with your sisters. It is your duty to free your brothers (whether they want it or not) and yourself from gender role stereotypes. Shaternikova M. Where does feminism grow from? // Bulletin of Moscow State University. - 2014. - No. 16. - P.25.

Not only the forms of feminist protest were shocking, but also their content. Those foundations of society that, according to feminists, contributed to the consolidation of the unequal status of women: marriage, motherhood, etc. were criticized. The logic of the reasoning boiled down to approximately the following: “In marriage, according to the law, a man and a woman are one person, that is, the very existence or legal existence of a woman ceases with the beginning of her marriage. For “one” always implies male dominance.”

The extremism of the feminist movement has had positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it contributed to the awakening of women's self-awareness, and on the other, it gave rise to discredit, allowing opponents to accuse feminists of having an inferiority complex, an unhealthy addiction to power, a tendency to sexual promiscuity, etc.

Feminism, like any other political movement, could not avoid radicalism, “leftism” as a kind of growing pains. It took time for maturity of assessments, moderation and balanced actions, and, finally, theoretical validity to arrive. This was greatly facilitated by the creation of a network of so-called women's studies, designed to simultaneously educate and provide a scientific foundation for the movement for women's liberation. Women's studies has become an integral part curricula many universities, and many specialized research centers have appeared.

In the 70s, centers for “women’s” or “feminist” studies with special programs, including specialists in biology, physiology, anthropology, ethnography, philosophy, history, and philology, appeared everywhere in Western universities. They moved into a debate that divided feminists into supporters of an “egalitarian” approach and preachers of “female subjectivity.” With the spread of women's studies, this dispute not only was not resolved, but separated opponents in different directions. Bryson V. Political theory of feminism. / Per. from English - M., 2011. P.145.

Researchers who based their analysis on a comparison of “male” and “female” roles in different situations and different periods proposed their way out of this impasse. They proposed introducing a new concept of “gender” (from the English gender - genus). In Russian, this concept can only be explained by a semantic phrase: “social relations of gender,” or the socially fixed division of roles into male and female. They strive to transfer the analysis of gender relations from the biological level to the social level in order to finally abandon the postulate about the “natural purpose of sex”; show that the concept of “gender” belongs to the same meaning-forming concepts as “class” or “race”.

In the 70-80s, the international community adopted documents that call for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. In them, a woman is recognized as the same full-fledged subject of history as a man, and her personality is valued higher than her “natural purpose”; they emphasize that the birth of children, procreation is a woman’s right, not a duty.

The “women's revolution” that began in the 60s went under the slogan: “If a woman has the right to half of heaven, then she has the right to half of the power on earth!” - in the 80-90s, it forced those in power to make room and finally let women into all structures of social governance. These structures began to turn from single-sex male structures into “mixed” structures. The suffragettes, the grandmothers of late 20th century American women, would have rejoiced at the increase in the number of women members of political parties. In 1969 Women occupied only 3.5% of state positions by 1986. this figure rose to 13%. Their representation in local government was 4% in 1975. and 10% in 1981 The share of women in the US Parliament is 11.2%, in the UK - 7.8%. . And these numbers continue to grow, albeit very slowly. Thus, the “women's revolution” changed the idea of the role of women in modern society. By the mid-90s, men held 375 seats in the US House of Representatives; women held only 60. In the Senate, there were 87 men and 13 women. There are 4 women in senior ministerial positions in the Bush Administration. Women-owned companies employ one in four Americans. But at the same time, only 12.4% of women are members of the boards of directors of the largest American companies. Bryson V. Political theory of feminism. / Per. from English - M., 2011. P.147.

In 1961, US President John Kennedy created the world's first special structure - the President's Commission on the Status of Women. This organization was headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of President Franklin Roosevelt and author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Commission monitored the observance of women's rights in the workplace.In 1963, the US Congress required all employers to pay women the same as men for the same work.

In 1964, discrimination based on race and gender was prohibited by law in the United States. The influential Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created, which aimed to investigate cases of such discrimination. Right there. P.148.

Feminism spread around the world so quickly only because it could use pre-existing traditions of social activity everywhere. Feminism has adopted the fundamental norms of the era of humanism and Enlightenment, according to which man is a being that affects environment and on oneself, changing and creating. However, in a patriarchal society, a man has assumed an active role and the right to embody these characteristics of the human race. The goal of feminism is, therefore, to free women from the restrictions imposed by men, giving them equal opportunities to participate in the creative process, in history.

Feminism grew out of other movements aimed at reforming society. In the United States, one of the ancestors of feminism was the movement for the liberation of the black population, and another was the student movement. In Britain and Western European countries, modern feminism has its roots in the radical student movement of the 60s.

Since the early 60s, a radical branch of American feminism—the “liberation movement”—began to take shape. This movement gradually grew out of the “new left” movement, at the same time being a reaction and protest to the student revolution. Women students enthusiastically took part in university protests, sit-ins, protest marches against segregation in the South, and anti-war rallies and debates against the Vietnam War. But gradually they begin to feel dissatisfied with their role in the youth movement. The disappointment was associated with the process of realizing one’s complete detachment from leadership and decision-making in the new leftist informal groups and organizations. The New Left movement was the first mass movement of middle-class young people in the history of the United States against the institutions and values of Western democracy. The criticism and ideological nihilism of the new radicals concerned the entire system of values and institutions of the “rotten industrial civilization.” Zherebkina I. “Read my wish...” Postmodernism. Psychoanalysis. Feminism. M., 2014. P.76.

At the same time, it turned out that, having questioned the political ideals of “one hundred percent Americanism”, challenging the bourgeois “American Dream”, the “new left”, like the “old”, questioned the values and practices of patriarchy. The demands of egalitarian democracy and “participatory democracy” do not apply to the system of gender relations. Comrades in the movement who dared to step away from the prepared role of clerical and kitchen assistants and put the issue of equal rights for women on the agenda of youth meetings were met with rude ridicule, bullying and complete rejection. The leader of the influential radical organization the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee became famous throughout the country for his “jocular” reaction to the question of the status of women. “The only position for women in our political organization,” he publicly declared, “is prostrate.”

Women leaving student groups in protest are forming their own communities and organizations. Their new concept is the slogan “The personal is political.” The “liberation wing” declaration provided a basis for collective strategies and actions distinct from the practices of liberal feminism. The main form of their activity was the creation of informal small discussion groups “conscious-raising”. Awareness of women's personal deprivation and personal experience as a political problem and as a social model of inequality for women as a group inevitably led, according to the organizers, to the formation of a collective identity and new solidarity activity. “ Personal experience and personal experiences give reason to talk about the general problem of oppression of all women,” said the Manifesto of the Red Stockings, an influential radical group from New York. -- “Male dominance is the oldest form of domination and exploitation of women. The growth of self-awareness is not psychotherapy, it is the development of the solidary class consciousness of women. Our goal is liberation from all types of suppression of the female personality. Zherebkina I. “Read my wish...” Postmodernism. Psychoanalysis. Feminism. M., 2014. P.78.

Any woman or women's group could begin activities at the local community, city or state level.

In numerous “consciousness growth” and “increasing personal self-esteem” groups, their participants rethought the well-known “similarities versus differences” debate in a new way. In the radical movement, female difference, opposed to the understanding of equality as sameness, ceases to be a term of abuse. On the initiative of women's groups, alternative women's “countercultural” groups are being formed. social institutions and practice. Since the late 60s, feminist publications, bookstores, cafes, kindergartens, women's clinics and centers have appeared women's health and family planning, crisis centers for women subjected to sexual and domestic violence. In its scope, the “liberation” women's movement by the mid-70s began to surpass the scale of anti-war and youth protests. Evans S. Born for Freedom. / Translated from English. - M., 2013. P.107.

The feminist challenge is becoming a leading theme in the media. The women's rights movement did not cause such resonance. The reformism of women's liberal organizations of the 60s, in general, fit into the framework of the US democratic system, while the radicalism of liberation groups threatened to destroy centuries-old sociocultural values, institutions and policies.

Problematization of sexual relations, as political relations power and subordination exacerbated the split within feminism in the 1980s. The identification of the lesbian wing in the radical movement and the ideological justification of female homosexuality as the leading strategy for women's liberation caused sharp antagonism from liberal organizations. According to one of the famous theorists of this movement, Charlotte Bunch, “reformists define the problem as a private issue; Meanwhile, for us, this is a form of political rebellion against the social construction of female sexual inferiority and secondaryness, as well as the fight against male power and oppression.”

By creating their own organizations and distancing themselves from the male homosexual movement, the lesbian community of the 1970s insisted on the fundamental importance of combating compulsory heterosexuality. Since the prevailing sexual practices excluded the possibility of realizing and satisfying women's own sexual desires, it was this project, in their opinion, that provided the basis for the establishment of equality as a sociocultural norm. As feminist discussions cool, proclamation of homosexuality ceases to be an act of political protest. Since the mid-80s, in the context of compliance civil rights sexual minorities, this topic becomes part of the program requirements of liberal organizations. Evans S. Born for Freedom. / Translated from English. - M., 2013. P.108.

Since the mid-70s, following the lesbian movement, the movement of black feminism began to take shape within the framework of the US women's movement. Famous journalists, future popular writers Alice Walker, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison and Angela Davis were the first to raise the problem of double identity and double oppression of black American women in their works. Involved in the civil rights movement of African-Americans in the 60s, they followed the same path in their ideological evolution as their white comrades in youth organizations. The discovery of the marginality of women's situation not only in the traditionally patriarchal American society, but also in the new liberal and radical concepts of African-American liberation inevitably brought them into the ranks of feminists, inevitably causing accusations of betrayal of the interests of racial solidarity from adherents of the new programmatic slogan of the struggle “black power.” .

For black feminists themselves, the path to achieving female solidarity of protest also could not be simple and smooth. A serious barrier to this path and the main object of criticism was that the experiences of black women were not included in the models of women's liberation created by white feminism. In this sense, the concepts and practices of both branches of the movement of previous decades completely ignored the social, racial and ethnic differences among women. The liberal and radical paradigms of feminism, built exclusively on the experiences of white, educated middle-class women, reproduced, according to feminists of color, a power hierarchy among women themselves. The mechanism they created to ensure formal individual equality, which did not take into account the double exploitation of women from racial, ethnic minorities and lower social classes, turned out to be unworkable and sometimes worsened the status of these women. One of the most famous theorists of black feminism, bell hooks, wrote in her book “Feminist Theory: From the Edge to the Center” about the need not to limit the scope of feminism to the desire to achieve the same social status as men. Beauvoir S. de. Second floor. / Per. from fr. - M.: Gardarika, 2014. P.54.

Adding missing elements of analysis inevitably creates a split in the feminist environment, but at the same time it expands the boundaries of feminism to understand the totality of multiple systems of domination, the interdependence of forms of oppression based on gender, race and class. Identifying oppression exclusively with male dominance indicated, in Hooks's view, the weakness of liberal and radical political analysis and made it difficult to formulate viable strategies, the ability of men and women to be subordinated - their common point of contact. This idea becomes key in the formation of multicultural feminism in the 1980s and 1990s.

“Different feminism,” or the plurality of feminisms, defined a new stage in the ideology and practices of the US women's movement in the 1980s and 1990s. The collective action of the 1960s and 1970s is being replaced by the institutionalization of the women's movement in decision-making on a wide range of gender policies. The academic status of new university programs in women's and gender studies affirmed the recognition of the epistemological possibilities of feminist concepts. In the last decade of the 20th century, the integration of many feminist values into the structure of the national identity and life philosophy of Americans became obvious. Legal recognition and respect for differences of all kinds shaped the formulation of the principles of multicultural pluralism in the 1990s and the evolution of the American model of democracy. Beauvoir S. de. Second floor. / Per. from fr. - M.: Gardarika, 2014. P.60.

1.2 Main directions of modern feminism

It seems like “feminism” is an American phenomenon, or rather, now it is no longer American, but global, worldwide, but it was born in America - at least that’s what they say. Maybe that's how it is. I touched on this topic a little in my story about New York. Now I would like to go into more detail.

The feminism in question is a phenomenon of the 80-90s of the last century, when women became men. And so it began... Various courts of rights, cases of accusations of “sexual harassment” - this is when a woman thinks that a man looked at a woman as an object of desire. Previously, we knew about all this only by hearsay - now a lot has reached us.

The woman became a man, accusing the man of having to do this - maybe she’s right in some ways - I’m not challenging her right, I’m not reproaching her - I’m just thinking. She walked over heads, through corpses, through skyscrapers, human souls - she walked quickly, confidently - but where did she go?

Of course, a lot has been said about the role of women. Plato in his “Republic” - one of his strongest works - of course, when considering the ideal state, he considered all its component parts: society, the unit of society - the family, the components of the family - man and woman. So he considered the ideal woman in an ideal state.

He just carefully examined the process of why women cannot do the same things that men do, why they cannot, and what is the difference between them and husbands, if any. A wonderful comparison from there: can a bald and hairy man be a shoemaker? Are they different? It is necessary to understand, according to Plato, how they differ in order to thoughtfully explain whether they can do the same thing or not. Popkova L. Theory and practice of modern feminism: the women's movement in the USA. St. Petersburg, 2014. P.24.

A man is a breadwinner and a guardian, but why can’t a woman be a breadwinner and a guardian? What delimitation criteria should we talk about? According to Plato, ideal man had to be fluent in the art of gymnastics - he was given a number of exercises, which had to be performed naked for a more effective result. At the very beginning, this caused ridicule among society, but then they evaporated as the results spoke for themselves. This led to reflections on the fact that then women should also engage in naked activities, and this may not be reasonable enough: after all, even at a fairly advanced age, men engage in nude activities, even when they are deprived of the attractiveness of youth. How will older women survive this if they are equal in this too?

However, after thinking in detail, Plato came to the conclusion that a woman can do the same things as a man, but since she is physically weaker than him, her workload should be less. At the same time, a woman also has a certain other role, so this compensates the woman for some difference with the opposite sex. However, she can be both a warrior and a guard on an equal basis with a man, if she so desires. Plato has very fascinating opinions, and besides Plato, many later touched on this issue.

Apparently, once again the woman decided to prove that she can do what a man does, but not in the Platonic way, but from the point of view that she can do it no worse, not on an equal footing, but even better - that she is stronger, more significant. When talking about equality and equality, feminists put themselves first. There's something wrong with this. It’s another matter when a man, elevating you as a woman, puts you in first place. This is similar to when others see merit in you and celebrate them, but it’s another thing when you yourself talk about them incessantly.

Once again, the woman was seduced, of course, seduced spiritually, which caused her tragedy - seduced by the theory of consumption, fashion and the catwalk, with slogans like “You deserve it - take it! You can!" As a result of this, at first glance, seemingly feminine, the Woman became similar to the man, similar in all criteria, and such a woman even outwardly assimilated with the male archetype. Popkova L. Theory and practice of modern feminism: the women's movement in the USA. St. Petersburg, 2014. P.27.

In America, the following happened: in megacities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, where the bulk of the population lives, there are generally fewer men and a larger proportion of non-men. Men who are more or less capable and attractive in terms of future marriage and fatherhood have turned away from feminists.

It feels like there is now a wave of mixed marriages - a man in America, having reached marriageable age, does not look at women shaking their rights, calling all individuals of the opposite sex “goats”. Marriages began everywhere with European women - French, Italian, Spanish, Scandinavian, and moreover - with Oriental women - from Asia plus the beauties of Panama, Ecuador, Guatemala, because women there are still classically feminine. I know one worthy couple - an Asian woman, very famous for her age, occupies a fairly high position and can at work “settle”, “build” entire workshops overseas that work for their corporation, but... the husband is a HUSBAND for her! Apparently, this tradition comes from the East - a woman does everything to make her husband better - because this is what she is in her husband. For her, he is a king and God. And they have very a good relationship in family. The man, in turn, carries her in his arms, he does not look at her as his free app, as something secondary in their union. This is probably the “Yin-Yang” unity characteristic of Asia, when people do not use each other, but complement each other. Temkina A. A. Feminism: West and Russia // Transfiguration. - 2015. - No. 3. - P.41.

At the same time, there are a huge number of young American women in offices - lonely, embittered. Yes, even if one of them is dating someone, the following often happens: a pretty girl, and he is... nondescript, spineless, no-one - a dud. Where is the best place for her to find it? And seeing his inconsistency, she reviles him behind his back, oppresses him even more and still remains with him, so as not to be lonely.

What woman admits to her mistakes? And the collective feminist mind never admits that it is doing something wrong (although everything may be true, this is how it should be - after all, I, a sinner myself, am simply reasoning from my sinful point of view).

And feminism has moved forward even more wildly - this is very clearly visible on the street, when eyes run away, deprived of love, who have deprived themselves of it - nervous, aggressive, ready to rush at anyone - men literally shy away from them - you can’t approach them, they there are a lot of them and they are rushing to God knows where. Where? Right there.

And this has reached our country too. Maybe New York feminists are still a long way off, but somewhere nearby - the so-called “self-made women”, each with their own business.

The most important part of feminism is its gradual evolution. The content of this evolution is a shift towards multicultural feminism, plurality of feminisms or feminisms of difference. Until this time, the idea of female identity, which was the main focus of liberal and radical feminism, made it difficult to conceptualize the diversity of women's experiences. The experiences of white, well-educated, middle-class women were normalized, ignoring the historical and sociocultural conditions of other, more marginalized women's groups. Multicultural feminism argued that recognizing women's differences and conflicts is part of a healthy political process. Shenard A. Where is the feminist movement going? / Per. from English // Today. - 2014. - No. 23. - P.4.

With gaining experience political activity women have become more confident in themselves and their abilities. It seems that the modern women's liberation movement followed a similar path. At its initial stage, there was a struggle to achieve the same specific goals - such as the right to abortion, the right to divorce, the legal prosecution of rapists and men who beat their wives.

The key word was “the right to choose”: women sought to control their own lives and, above all, their own bodies.

One more important area The activities of the women's movement at the present stage have become the labor market. Here, women are fighting for the right to get a job, equal opportunities for career advancement, and equal pay for equal work. A demand is being put forward to repeal legislative acts that are supposedly designed to “protect”, but in fact discriminate against them.

Feminism considers not the experience of gender, but the experience of gender; “masculinity” and “femininity” are not biological-anatomical, but cultural-psychological characteristics, since manifestations of gender and biological sexuality exist only as a product of “humanized interactions.” To attribute generic ideas inherent in a given culture to the very “nature of man”, his sexual characteristics, according to feminism, means to uncritically accept a number of hidden patriarchal premises - a certain type of division of labor, the hierarchical principle of subordination of the young to the elders, an abstract-technological understanding of science, philosophy, progress etc. These attitudes have, according to feminism, a cultural-historical nature and cannot be reduced either to economic or legal reasons. Taking these premises into account, relations between the sexes are understood in feminism as one of the types of manifestation of power relations, since under the guise of “objectivity” a situation is reproduced when one part of the human race, having its own interests, simultaneously represents the interests of another part of it. this corresponds to a specific understanding of “objectivity” that develops through scientific ideas that bear the stamp of a “masculinist orientation.” In cultures of this type, according to feminist theorists, a woman is represented only as an “Other.”

Representatives of feminism believe that the schemes of rational control prescribed by society for men and women are essentially different, while the type of female spirituality remains, in principle, unclaimed. The basic schematisms of culture are mastered only in their masculinist manifestation. Therefore, the goal of feminism is to remove women's spirituality from the “sphere of silence.” The fundamental insufficiency of traditional theoretical analysis and the need for political action.

Thus, feminism causes significant and irreversible changes in a woman’s life, in everything that has to do with her social status, her place in society. Feminism greatly changes the picture of the world in the political and economic aspects, bringing into the arena previously hidden forces that are now gaining weight faster and faster. Currently, feminism remains a vital and visible social movement that has achieved its greatest successes in the field of culture. Despite the loud predictions of the post-feminist era, the ongoing social inequality of women and its eradication remains the focus of feminism in all its forms.

Chapter 2. Research on women in business

2.1 Opportunities for women to occupy leading positions in enterprise management

A woman in business is not an exception, but a pattern of entrepreneurship development in modern Russia- true, confirmed by data from questionnaire studies and general statistics; patterns of growth in the share of women’s participation in entrepreneurship. In particular, in industry, agriculture, wholesale trade, activities to ensure the functioning of the market, and the financial sector, the share of women entrepreneurs ranges from 13% (in industry) to 20% (finance). And the most actively explored by women are retail trade, public catering, science, culture, and healthcare, where the share of entrepreneurs ranges from 39% (in retail trade) to 56% (in science). These findings are consistent with data from other surveys, which confirms their validity.

Behind last years The share of women in business is increasing rapidly. Gender stereotypes in modern Russia when considering the possibility of women taking leading positions in enterprise management are quite strong, however, market conditions have led to their softening. This is reflected in the fact that the number of women occupying leading positions in companies has been growing steadily over the past 5 years. Komarov E.I. Woman leader. M., 2013. P.46.

Truly “female” sectors of entrepreneurship have emerged (retail trade, services, etc.), in which the share of female managers is significantly ahead of men. Research results confirm the priority of service and trade sectors in women's entrepreneurship. According to the study, 45% of women head enterprises with up to 10 employees and 55% - with 10 to 30 employees. According to the author of the survey, this is due to the fact that women's entrepreneurship is mainly developed in those industries whose technology does not require a large number of workers.

A woman has the opportunity to act as a subject of entrepreneurial relations on an equal basis with men - this is not true, men have advantages both in employment and in some other relationships in business - this is confirmed by survey data and analysis of observation results.

Six hundred surveyed women aged 20 to 55 years (3.2% of them are entrepreneurs) believe that women, unlike men, have much fewer opportunities for professional growth, career advancement, and holding a high position. According to respondents, this is hampered by time-consuming family responsibilities (55%), difficulties in combining work and family (38%), as well as the prejudiced attitude of men (19.2%). Komarov E.I. Woman leader. M., 2013. P.48.

The results of a study by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences showed the following: when asked why women cannot successfully run a business, respondents gave the following reasons: 22% simply believe that women are not able to do business at all; 22% sympathize with women, but find it more difficult to get support from others officials, take a loan from a bank, etc.; 12% drew attention to the fact that for some reason it is more difficult for women to obtain an appropriate education; and 21% note the resistance of relatives, friends, and family to their doing business.

For successful business, the issue of gender is not the main one - this is true, since the specific characteristics of the individual’s capabilities, be it a woman or a man, come to the fore - this is confirmed by statistical data and analysis of observation results.

Experience shows that women can lead successfully, and there are already quite a few women in leadership positions. According to Goskomstat, already in 1994. Among the co-owners of commercial limited liability partnerships (and there are more than 900 thousand of them), women accounted for 39%, cooperatives - 23%, entrepreneurs using hired labor - 17-19%, in individual labor activities more than 1/3 were women. In 1996, out of 200 business enterprises, according to estimates by L.V. Babaeva and A.E. Chirikova, in 25% of companies women held leadership positions. Komarov E.I. Woman leader. M., 2013. P.52.

Another conclusion from psychologists seemed interesting: successful business models are carried out by those entrepreneurs who, regardless of their own gender, have a psychological script of behavior - managers. This means that both men and women have almost equal psychological capabilities to manage an enterprise. Gender characteristics practically do not act as limitations for successful leadership.

A businesswoman has a number of significant psychophysiological advantages over a male entrepreneur, which allows her to more effectively build strategies and tactics for doing business in certain sectors of commerce - this is true, since in a number of business sectors women naturally occupy leading positions compared to men - this is confirmed by statistics, surveys and analysis of observation results.

As many male employers note, in certain leadership positions and in many areas of entrepreneurship, the “female managing hand” has a number of great advantages - for example, when negotiating with male companions, when developing entrepreneurship in an area where demand is formed by women themselves, etc. Novikova N. Liberal feminism in Russia and the West: experience of comparative analysis. Yaroslavl, 2010. P.37.

A number of researchers on this issue argue that there is a special, “female style” of management and business, characterized by soft relations with subordinates, greater attention to the particulars and features of the company’s strategic behavior in the market. This management system often turns out to be more effective than the male style of doing business - tough, direct and clearly regulated. According to J. Rosener, this management style allows you to go through the stages of a crisis in business with fewer losses.

Today, social prejudices and discriminatory aspects that limit women’s opportunities in commerce compared to men remain in society - this is true, confirmed by the analysis of observation results and questionnaire studies.

In many studies, surveys of male respondents showed that they have a fundamentally negative attitude towards the role of women in business, and are skeptical about the possibility of a woman doing anything serious. Moreover, this opinion is often not confirmed by more or less clear argumentation - for example, 22% of respondents in a study by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences “simply” believe that women are not capable of doing business at all. Novikova N. Liberal feminism in Russia and the West: experience of comparative analysis. Yaroslavl, 2010. P.38.

Analytical observation results also confirm this state of affairs. For example, it is believed that women in business pay less attention to the main thing and more to the little things; less content and more form; place less emphasis on the future and more on current problems. They pay less attention to the production of money than to their preservation. Men, accordingly, are the opposite.

A typical anti-scientific stereotype is the opinion that women managers are often forced to fall under the influence of their male subordinates in matters of the future of the company and its strategy.

A sociological survey conducted in Russia showed that when asked to women “Are you ready to engage in entrepreneurial activity?” they answered as follows:

“Yes, ready” 22%,

“I don’t want” 44%,

“Already engaged” 0.4%, .

“I never thought about it” 34.6%.

The majority of women expressed the opinion: “This is not a woman’s business.” Komarov E.I. Woman leader. M., 2013. P.115.

The process of alienating women from power, from real participation in politics, especially in big politics, is underway and even gaining momentum. In the conditions of democratization of society, has a woman begun to play a more active role in public life Russia? When conducting a sociological survey, only 11 percent of respondents gave an affirmative answer, 62 percent gave a negative answer, half of whom are convinced that the real participation of women in public life has decreased.

Among 0.1% of women entrepreneurs, an optimistic attitude prevails, elation and even delight in their activities. For most women, feelings of anxiety, tension, and uncertainty about the future dominate.

Which typical mistakes behaviors allowed by women entrepreneurs and managers? A woman begins this activity by spending a lot of energy on quickly overcoming or at least disguising her natural features. Feeling as if she is on stage, a woman often thinks: “I am a woman and must constantly prove my right to lead not worse than men" She lives in constant fear of not living up to her position, of being too sentimental, kind, condescending, or of showing “feminine” weakness.

Do feminine charms help women in business and career? Men are confident that they are helping, especially if the woman has achieved more than them. However, in “big business” this rarely affects: “In business there are no men and women - there are business partners,” the British say.

Is there secret or overt discrimination against women? In a socio-psychological sense - yes. The main male personality traits are the motive of self-affirmation and achievement, rivalry with other men in the competition for status and position in society. Every man throughout his life, as it were, proves to himself and those around him that he is at least in some way better than others, seeks public recognition. In this struggle for status, a man competes with other men, but does not take women into account. Indeed, the desire for high social status is not typical of women; they are more focused on family well-being. A woman who asserts herself in her personal career often experiences irony and humiliation from men, especially if she succeeds better than them. A business woman who even made her way to high level business career, are usually not invited to selected, male companies, where the most important information is disseminated to a narrow circle. Komarov E.I. Woman leader. M., 2013. P.117.

The question arises: what are the limits of gender equality, can it be complete? The essence of the idea of equality of men and women, their equal opportunities, is that in terms of their intellectual and physical potential, a woman is in no way inferior to a man. For her, there are no fundamentally closed, inaccessible areas of mental and physical labor. No law should prohibit a woman from engaging in this or that business or mastering this or that profession. Her sacred right is complete freedom of personal choice of types and forms of activity for her self-realization. This formulation of the question, of course, does not mean that the physiological characteristics of women cannot limit (sometimes temporarily) their professional responsibilities. Hence the conclusion follows that gender equality, while not absolute, can be quite complete and comprehensive.

With all the pluralism of views on the problem of discrimination against women, we must not forget the fact of historical significance: namely October Revolution in Russia in 1917 gave impetus to solving the key issue of equality between women and men in all spheres of life, including civil and legal rights, in work and education, in the family.

But discrimination against the “weaker sex” continued under the Soviet regime. The party-quota system of female “appointment” practically sanctified her, if not by the force of law, then by the omnipotence of administrative orders. Service in the armed forces and other security forces (with the exception of a number of technical or auxiliary specialties) was closed to women. They were legally denied access to “heavy” and “harmful” industries, which completely excluded the freedom of personal choice.

As for post-Soviet Russia, despite all the talk and incantations about its democratization, the problem of social discrimination against women has acquired a special, exceptional urgency in connection with the collapse of the socialist social system, the change of the entire socio-economic structure and the virtual elimination of social guarantees for the family, children, women.

Thus, for analysis, the problematic situation lies in the deep contradiction that has developed between the formal course towards democratization of Russian society, towards the implementation of the constitutional principle of “equal rights and opportunities” of the sexes, on the one hand, and the actual discrimination of women in the sphere of labor and employment , infringement of their social rights in economic life, on the other. Word and deed, the “de jure” situation and the “de facto” situation, alas, as often happens in Russian reality, are in flagrant contradiction to each other.

Guided by certain documents and agreements and based on an analysis of Russian reality, on January 8, 1996, the Russian government adopted a resolution “On the concept of improving the status of women in Russian Federation" According to the concept, women's rights are an integral part of general human rights. Their full and equal participation in political, economic, social and cultural life at the federal, regional and international levels should be the main goal public policy in the field of improving the status of women in the Russian Federation.

The main method of collecting information for this work is to analyze the results of surveys conducted by various research organizations on this topic. This work also uses the method of sociological observation and analysis, carried out on the basis of our own research and surveys of a narrow group of respondents.

Questioning as the main method of analysis in this work is a survey of women involved in entrepreneurship. The selected surveys contain questions on the most characteristic aspects of the chosen topic: obstacles in business, discrimination, difficulties with obtaining licenses and certificates, and much more.

The tools used in this study can be divided into three parts:

1) comparison and comparison of the results of various studies on this topic;

2) analysis of observation results;

3) study and analysis of publications.

It should be noted that the specificity of this work is that it is not based on a specific study - be it a survey, observation or interviewing.

2.2 Findings from the study of women in business

The study proved the correctness of four out of five hypotheses - a woman in modern business- regularity; a woman in business is influenced by negative stereotypes; in certain areas of business, a woman’s natural psychophysiological qualities allow her to have an advantage over men; For successful business, the issue of gender is not decisive.

So, let's summarize. The fact that women in business today are increasingly strengthening their positions is proven. Women as a social category have become equal to men - this is confirmed by the current legislation, which does not make any differences between the sexes in business and entrepreneurial activity. Moreover, the highest legislative act of the country - the Constitution - directly states that no one can be subjected to any kind of discrimination based on gender. Women in modern Russia lead a significant percentage of all business structures. There is also a trend towards an increase in the number of women in business - every year the percentage of men and women entering business is tilting in favor of the latter. Based on this, we can conclude that the role of women in society as a whole is increasing every year. The rights of the fair half of humanity, which previously had only a declarative nature, have now become a real basis for the realization of any opportunities both in business and in other areas of public relations.

However, during the study, the second hypothesis was also confirmed - that a woman in business depends on the available resources public consciousness stereotypes and prejudices that have a sharply negative impact on a woman’s exercise of her rights to engage in entrepreneurship. It is impossible to overcome this tendency by legislative means, since the law cannot regulate the sphere of consciousness. However, the very fact of the presence of women in business and their increasing role in entrepreneurship should in themselves soon change these negative social stereotypes. Already, many men in the business sector have recognized a number of their undeniable superiorities in women - moreover, in many areas of business activity the stronger sex has “lost” its positions. equality woman business feminism

The same thesis is confirmed by the third proven hypothesis - that women in business have a number of objective advantages over men, and that certain sectors of entrepreneurship seem to be specially created for women. These include the service sector (hairdressing salons and beauty salons, for example), the retail trade sector, and in general any commercial enterprises that require attention to every detail, with a small or medium-sized staff. Research has shown that the share of women is higher in small businesses, then in medium-sized businesses. In the field of large, especially international business, men continue to occupy leading positions - but in the field of managing this business they are often simply forced to have female staff, since their presence under certain circumstances is interpreted by business tactics (for example, when negotiating with male partners) .

And the last hypothesis is that for conducting successful business the question of gender is not decisive - it accumulates previous ones and sums up this study. Indeed, despite all the obstacles that a modern businesswoman has to face, despite public opinion, the question of success in commercial activity, first of all, depends not on gender (age, nationality, linguistic or religious affiliation), but on the quality of available professional skills, experience, objective financial and strategic capabilities. Indeed, if a woman has the necessary knowledge, dedication, perseverance and perseverance, as well as financial and strategic capabilities, then no man, no social prejudices can prevent her from reaching the top of the business elite and occupying a worthy niche in the field of entrepreneurship.

Similar documents

The formation and negative role of gender stereotypes in society. Qualities associated only with men or only with women. Social ideas about the purpose of men and women in society. Feminism as a movement of women for their rights.

test, added 11/09/2010

Ideas about the social status and rights of women. Evaluation of the results achieved by women. Social stereotypes about the purpose of women in society. Feminism as a movement of women for their rights. The problem of gender inequality in politics and in the family.

course work, added 10/22/2012

Feminism as a concept and movements for women's equality. The role of this phenomenon as a large-scale project to reduce population. The activities of feminists in the second half of the 20th century. Modern consequences of the triumph of feminism as a social norm.

presentation, added 05/26/2015

The position of women and men in modern society. Ideas about the social status and rights of women. Evaluation of the results achieved by women. Social ideas about the purpose of women in society. Feminism as a movement of women for their rights.

abstract, added 11/06/2012

Prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of feminism. The history of women's struggle for their civil, social, human rights. Main directions and features of women's social movement on the international stage. Addressing the issue of gender equality in the Republic of Belarus.

thesis, added 05/21/2014

The problem of historical changes in the position of women, their reflection in modern world. Definition of feminism. The emergence of feminist ideas in Europe during the Enlightenment. A family stereotype that gradually develops into a cult of a strong woman.

article, added 01/09/2013

presentation, added 10/28/2013

General and special in the history of Russian and Western feminism. The background of Russian “second wave” feminism: the “solution” of the women’s issue in the USSR. The revival of feminism in the late 70s. Women in the human rights movement. Study of the role of feminism in Russia.

course work, added 05/27/2009

The emergence and development of the women's movement, the history of its origins in Europe. The modern women's movement and its problems. Main directions of feminism. Discrepancies between de jure and de facto status of women. Prospects for the women's movement in the 21st century.

course work, added 03/06/2016

Feminism is the theory of gender equality at the heart of the women's liberation movement. Marxist and radical feminism, functionalism - macrosociological theories of gender. Cultural and liberal feminism, symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology.

Topic 11. Feminism

1.Basic concepts of feminism

Feminism(from Latin “femina” " - woman) in modern socio-political life is usually called, Firstly, a system of views (or theory, philosophy, ideology), the central idea of which is the civil equality of women and men; Secondly, this concept used to refer to the women's movement, which is a “product” of feminism.

Feminism is sometimes understood as philosophical concept of sociocultural development , emphasizing the need to take into account women's social experience in ideas about the world, as well as research methodology oriented towards identifying and articulating the female value system.

Under "women's movement" understands the variety of forms of organized activity, aimed at implementing the idea of equality of women and men, at protecting the social interests of women . However, as history has shown, this activity may not entirely coincide with feminist ideas and may not be aimed at the radical transformation of relations between the sexes that feminism seeks, but at a partial improvement in the position of women within the framework of the traditional system of these relationships. And yet, feminism and the women's movement are so interconnected phenomena that it is impossible, and even incorrect, to consider them separately. The emergence of feminist ideas is the result of certain social needs and expectations . Once they arise, these ideas are realized in people’s activities—in this case, in one or another type of women’s movement. Which, in turn, gives impetus to the meaningful development of the theory and ideology of feminism.

Contemporary feminism has a variety of forms and traditions. To his the most important areas include: liberal feminism, radical(and within its framework - cultural) feminism, Marxist and socialist feminism, " black» feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, postmodern feminism ( postfeminism). Less known versions of it are: anarcho-feminism, humanistic feminism, conservative feminism. Among the newest feminist streams are eco- and cyberfeminisms.

Two key concepts - "gender" And "patriarchy"- connect together all this many approaches to the ideas of equal rights for women and men. Close to them is the concept sexism(English sexism, from Latin sexus - sex) - a worldview that affirms the unequal status and different rights of the sexes .

When using the concept gender(from English gender - gender) and its derivatives (gender relations, gender order, etc.) we are talking about social, cultural, psychological characteristics positions of women and men , while "floor" denotes, first of all, physical, physiological, biological differences between men and women . English sociologist Anthony Giddens explains, for example, that “gender” is these are “not physical differences between men and women, but socially formed features of masculinity and femininity». Gender, he says, means primarily “social expectations about behavior considered appropriate for men and women.”

Unlike other scientific approaches the concept of “gender” considers man and woman not in a “natural”, “natural” quality, not as a biological being whose fate is predetermined by its physiological characteristics, but as a social being, with its own special status, special social interests, requests, needs, strategy of social behavior. E. Giddens rightly notes that “the distinction between sex and gender is fundamental, since many differences between women and men are caused by reasons that are not biological in nature ».

This seemingly simple conclusion is difficult to master. After all, it has long been accepted that differences in social positions and in the everyday behavior of women and men are determined by their “genes” and “chromosomes”, which, by the way, are indeed not the same. All the genetic material of any person is contained in a cell . It lives in twenty three pairs of chromosomes , the last one is twenty-third - contains sex chromosomes . For women, both elements of this pair are identical. They are designated asXX chromosomes. For men, this pair is made up of different elements. One of them is defined as X-, other like Y chromosome. Modern science believes that these differences appear upon reaching puberty in women and men and make themselves felt primarily in the reproductive sphere .

However many researchers traditionally dispute this point of view. In their opinion, innate biological differences determine generally all social behavior of men and women . Men stronger, more energetic, more aggressive than women. Women- passive, patient, meek. That's why men wage wars, conquer nature, create history and culture. Women are engaged in routine housework and raising children. The obvious asymmetry of “masculinity” and “femininity”, from this point of view, is inevitable, it is predetermined by “nature” , but you can’t argue with the latter. This means that it is not for nothing that the founder of psychoanalysis Z. Freud at first XX V. came to the sacramental conclusion: “ Anatomy is destiny».

This biologically determined approach to proper “masculine” and proper “feminine” for many thousands of years seemed the only possible one. As feminist supporters argue, this approach served as an ideological justification for patriarchy — systems of male dominance, or dominance, over women. Not without good reason, they prove that the traditional division of roles into “male” and “female”, which is generally considered “natural”, due to natural inclinations, is the result of a certain type of socialization of upbringing and training. It begins in very early childhood, when parents communicate completely differently with boys and girls, dress them, offer them certain toys and books. At each stage of education, specific attributes of “masculinity” and “femininity” are developed, which, as a rule, convey the idea of male social superiority, that is, they affirm and consolidate patriarchy.

So in fact general view the concepts of “patriarchy” and “gender” intersect, substantiating the legitimacy of the original feminist idea of equal rights for women and men. One of the most difficult questions that arises in this case is the question of why women found themselves in an unequal, dependent position on men, why patriarchy was established? Have there ever been other times and other forms of interaction between women and men?

2.Historical background of feminism

Experts do not have a single opinion or any accurate data about the nature of gender relations in the very distant past. Alone of them consider that at the dawn of history relationships between men and women were gender neutral . Others say that at that time reigned matriarchy. Moreover, someone defines this way of life as domination of women. And someone, including the famous American feminist anthropologist Ryan Eisler, argues that matriarchy actually implied partnerships between men and women. This partnership was allegedly destroyed with the emergence and development "war technologies" establishing the superiority of brute force, and with it patriarchy .

Researchers consider the materials obtained by archaeologists during excavations of the earliest human burials to be a significant confirmation of this point of view. Excavations speak of the equal status of those buried, regardless of their gender. But the most important evidence of the high female role in an archaic society is, in their opinion, widespread at that time in the area of ancient Europe, the cult of the Great Mother Goddess. According to R. Eisler, in almost all prehistoric myths and writings “there lives the idea of the Universe as a generous Mother, ... from whose womb every life comes and where ... everything returns after death to be born again.” This cult is indicated in its own way by rock paintings in caves and numerous finds of female figurines in ancient sanctuaries. They are usually crudely stylized, wide-hipped, and often faceless. Archaeologists dubbed them the ancient Venuses.

Evidence of the equal status of men and women in prehistoric times can be found in legends , retold by some ancient authors. The “golden age” of gender harmony is described, for example, in the famous Hesiod's tale "Works and Days". The same motive prevails in the retelling of the great thinker Plato the legend about the destruction of Atlantis. But these are prehistoric myths.

Strict researchers, accustomed to relying on specific facts when constructing theoretical structures, are not inclined to trust them. Therefore, they prove that in the history of mankind there was neither matriarchy nor archaic gender partnership. Primary division of labor between man and woman, which occurred at the earliest stages of social development, determined completely different living conditions for men and women . It consolidated men have the right to be the subject of history. Women or become object of male power.

This point of view is shared, for example, by the same E. Giddens. At the same time, he claims that the universal prevalence of patriarchy is not due to the dominance of male physical strength, but primarily to the maternal functions of women . According to him, “men dominate women not because of superior physical strength or more powerful intelligence, but only because before the spread of reliable means of preventing pregnancy women were entirely at the mercy of the biological characteristics of their sex . Frequent childbirth and almost non-stop efforts to care for children made them dependent on men, including financially.”

None of the above points of view on the nature of gender relations in prehistory has yet received final recognition. Obviously something else. With the beginning of the so-called historical time, approximately 7-5 thousand years ago , in the moment, when that type of social organization arises, which sociologists define as a “traditional” society », Patriarchy is a legalized system of gender relations. The division of labor between the sexes is built in this system on the principle of complementarity, but the complementarity of not at all equivalent social roles. To a man left to the outside world, culture, creativity, claims to dominance . To a woman - house, but even in the house she is a subordinate creature . Hierarchy of male and female roles is fixed quite clearly: he is the subject of power relations. She is the object of his power. Such relationships are defined by sociologists as subject-object, status unequal .

As rightly noted R. Eisler, lined up this way gender relations are the most fundamental of all human relations , even their matrix. They “have a profound impact on all our institutions, ... on the direction of cultural evolution.” The authority of male power, the right of force, established in gender relations, turns into the basis of all authoritarian regimes known to mankind. - the power of clan leaders, “fathers” of peoples, monarchs, dictators. And while gender inequality persists, there is also the potential for the existence of an authoritarian type of government. This is one of the main tenets of modern feminist criticism.

As part of this criticism, it is argued that authoritarian power is based not only on the apparatus of physical coercion and brutal violence. Authoritarian power also uses more subtle methods of influencing the consciousness of individuals , deliberately preventing their dissatisfaction and forcing them to unconsciously follow certain instructions, accept certain roles in the existing order of things. This -

Ø methods of cultural influence, formation of stereotypes of proper social behavior;

Ø methods of socialization and education;

Ø ideological processing of consciousness with the help of language and cultural patterns.

The most common example lying on the surface is language norms. Let's say practically In all European languages, the concept of “man” is equivalent to the concepts of “husband” and “man”. The concept of “woman” only cares about the meaning"wife" and is not synonymous with the concept “person”. It means that he is a husband, a full-fledged representative of the human race. She is his wife, and nothing more, no additional characteristics. That is, a woman - a person of no social significance, not included in human society . She is a simple addition, an addition to her husband, a man. Thus, language norms fix the patriarchal attitude towards male power- up to physical possession, possession of a woman.

Feminist historians rightly note that at the initial stages of traditional society, especially under conditions of slavery, the wife was “the slave of a man - the head of the family, who owned the woman as private property and could do with it the same way as he did with any thing belonging to him.” During some periods of history ancient Rome the husband had the right to life and death of his wife. A wife who disdained marital fidelity could be beaten to death with sticks and stones, or thrown into the circus to be torn to pieces by animals.

Famous philosophers of that time made a significant contribution to consolidating this order of things. Pythagoras, for example, confidently declared : “There is a positive principle that created order, light, man, and a negative principle that created chaos, twilight and woman.” Aristotle, in its turn, explained : “A woman is a female due to a certain lack of qualities... the female character suffers from natural inferiority... a woman is only material, the principle of movement is provided by another, the masculine, the best, the divine.”

3.The emergence of feminism

The first doubts about the fairness of patriarchal orders can already be detected in the New Testament, who announced that life and death of a person do not depend on the whim of nature, but only on the will of God . The teaching of Christ, in principle, complicated the view of man, highlighting in him spiritual and physical substances, soul and body. This The doctrine proclaimed what's there, in the heights of the mountains, all souls will be equalized, “both Greek and Jewish,” both men and women .

But the path to this promised personal equality in Christ is long and steep. In the meantime, an earthly woman is not at all equal to a man. First of all, she is sinful, how sinful is her foremother Eve, an accomplice of the devil, an instrument of dark forces that doomed man to expulsion from paradise. However Christianity also develops a different approach to women - develops, exalting the image of the Mother of God, contrasting the image of Eve — natural-generic femininity , image of the Virgin Mary — femininity spiritual, enlightened, personal and eternal .

Cult of the Virgin Mary with time developed in Romanesque countries of Europe into a cult beautiful lady . This cult foreshadowed the possibility of transforming the relationship between a man and a woman; He lifted the curse of sin from their love , op-overturned the hierarchy in relations of dominance-subordination : the knight worshiped and obeyed the lady, she was his mistress. Thanks to this cult love is individualized- another person and the feeling associated with him are recognized as no less significant a basis for individual existence than the existence of a race or the Divine principle. According to a French social psychologist J. Mendel, this is a sure sign that To XVI V. V Western Europe a completely new type of person is emerging - person, separated from the race, from his community, an individual arises, with his own self-awareness , with longing, love and loneliness.

Individualization, autonomy - manifestations of the onset emancipation of the individual(women and men) from the burden of patriarchal customs and traditions, and therefore a sign of a crisis in the traditional structure of gender relations. After all, what is emancipation? This autonomous action of the subject, aimed at his own liberation from the pressure of natural-generic forces.

Emancipation is accompanied , according to the definition of an outstanding sociologist Max Weber, "disenchantment" rationalization of the world picture . An obligatory part of such rationalization is “humanization” - a meaningful rethinking and changing the relationship between a man and a woman, which is gradually turning from a relationship of dominance/subordination into a relationship of mutual responsibility or " responsible love».

The process of emancipation is accompanied by the emergence two fundamentally important for modern history humanity of ideas - ideas of human rights and ideas of social contract, which were formulated during the Enlightenment and contrasted with traditionalist attitudes towards the authority of force, the right of force. The spread of these ideas provoked the formulation of the question about the rights of women, about their liberation from male domination.

In Western countries recognition of women's rights issues as an integral part of human rights occurs in several stages.

1. For the first time, women are announcing their claims to the role of full-fledged citizens during bourgeois revolutions, which can also be called revolutions of “law”, “legal consciousness”. This - the era of the birth of feminism.

2. Then, during industrial revolutions women in droves find themselves drawn into social production , which forces them to achieve equality in the sphere of socio-economic relations. This time "first wave" feminist movements that developed under the influence of liberalism and Marxism .

3. In the second half XX c., comes time of cultural revolutions, changing the approach to women’s reproductive functions, views on love, the birth of children, and family life. This stage is called "second wave" feminism, or neofeminism, established influenced by existentialism, psychoanalysis, structuralism and post-structuralism.

At all these stages, spanning more than three centuries, women won for themselves , relatively speaking, three groups of rights, which could allow them to count on a social status comparable in basic parameters to that of men :

Ø political (civil);

Ø socio-economic;

Ø reproductive rights.

The great bourgeois revolutions played a decisive role in this process . They proclaimed the advent of the era of human rights, thereby denying the inviolability of the complete and supposedly heaven-sanctified omnipotence of the monarch over his subjects, of men over women. And in contrast, they declared the freedom and equality of all people before the law. Among the first rebels who challenged patriarchal customs and demanded the same civil rights and freedoms that were granted to men during these revolutions are names French women Olympia de Gouges, Englishwomen Mary Wollstonecraft, American women Abigail Adams. These champions of women's equality were later dubbed " feminists". Their worldview was formed largely under the influence of the liberal ideology of the Enlightenment (Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, Rousseau, T. von Hippel, etc.).

4.Theoretical foundations of feminism

First public manifesto of feminism is " Declaration of the rights of women and citizens", written in 1791 little known writer Olympia de Gouges. In this document for the first time in history, the demand for civil equality of women and men was formulated.

Article one of the Declaration stated : “A woman is born and remains free and equal with a man in the face of the law.” Article six developed this idea further. It declared: “All citizens and citizens must have equal access to all public honors and positions, to all services, for which there should be no barriers other than personal abilities and talents.” Finally Olympia de Gouges prophetically said: “If a woman has the right to ascend the scaffold, then she should have the right to ascend to the podium.”

Such a careless statement cost the writer her life. She was sent to the guillotine as a person who disdained social order. But this same statement brought her immortality. Olympia de Gouges went down in history as the author of the “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen,” written in opposition to the most famous document in modern history, “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.”

What did not suit Olympia de Gouges in the document, which, seemingly sweeping away all the prejudices of its time, unconditionally stated: “All people are born and remain free and equal in rights”? She found the address “suspicious” les homines "(men, people), addressed only to one half of society. Many French women hoped at that moment that legislators would recognize women as capable citizens. The most determined of them even created special women's organization "Society of Revolutionary Republican Women" , which demanded that women be provided the right to vote in elections. This organization can be considered a prototype of the future movement suffragettes(from English suffrage - voting).

But neither the literary gift of Olympia de Gouges nor the pressure of the revolutionary Republican women brought civil rights to French women at that time. Lawmakers refused to see them as full-fledged citizens. Women - along with children, the mentally ill, and financially insolvent persons - fell into the category of those unable to answer for themselves in the face of the law . Women's organizations were disbanded, Furthermore, women, we were forbidden to gather in groups in public places. Thus, the French revolution cooled the ardor of its citizens and nipped in the bud the first shoots of women's social activity, including the desire for collective action with the help of women's associations.

Released in 1804 Napoleon's Civil Code, which began to be considered the standard of bourgeois jurisdiction, confirmed that women do not have civil rights and are either under the guardianship of their father or under the guardianship of their husband . Following the Napoleonic Code, everything new bourgeois legislation rigidly fixes the traditional division of male and female roles. For men still belongs to the entire outside world and dominance in the house. Women - domestic peace, raising children and the obligation to obey your husband. This order is the pinnacle of patriarchy . He is recognized not only custom, but also formal law.

The triumph of male power is also strengthened by the fact that at this moment there is a separation of the sphere of private life from public life - public sphere. The law begins to protect privacy from outside interference, something that past centuries did not know, when a leader or monarch had the right to encroach on everything that was on the territory under their control. A man, the owner of the house, becomes a sovereign master on his territory . Here he gets the opportunity to straighten up to his full height and transform from a subject into a ruler - an independent citizen. He acquires citizenship skills through the suppression of the "other" . Such an “other” was his wife, who was legally obliged to cultivate his authority in the family, bow to him, and humbly endure his despotism.

English social philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), being under the strong influence of the radical democratic ideas of Rousseau, the first made a systematic critique of social orders from the standpoint of feminism - 50 years before the emergence of the Sufra-Jist movement. Her most significant work " Defense of Women's Rights" (1792) bears the imprint of Locke's liberal philosophy; in it on the basis of the idea of “inimitability and uniqueness of the individual,” the need to provide women with equal rights with men, especially the right to education, was argued . In addition, the work carried a much more complex analysis of women's problems themselves - an analysis that in many ways anticipated modern feminism.

Beginning since the 30s XIX centuryThe women's movement is reasserting itself. This time the impetus for its development comes from industrial Revolution, which literally explodes the traditional way of life in Western Europe. The modernization of this way of life is accompanied by the development of large-scale industry, the growth of cities, and the ruin of small rural farms. And at the same time - destruction of the previous type of family life, crisis in the relationship between man and woman . Two circumstances provided crushing impact on traditional family relationships:

Ø mass involvement of women in social production;

Ø gradual establishment of birth control.

New large-scale industrial production increasingly uses cheap female labor. Under the influence of the industrial revolution mass female labor in social production turns into a fact of social life . And the fact is far from clear. On the one side, it created an economic opportunity to challenge the traditional hierarchy of male and female roles. A with another- turned into super-overloads, super-exploitation of women. After all, no one relieved them of the usual household duties, motherly worries and troubles. Moreover, according to the laws in force at that time the woman could not even manage her earnings - it belonged to her husband . Women were not accepted into trade unions and other public organizations that defended the rights of hired workers, etc. So did new grounds arise? For joint collective performances of women, For creation of women's organizations, designed to defend the interests and rights of women.

With their help, women could present their account to society, which forced them to leave the family hearth and start working. With time within the framework of the women's movement, the first demands were made on the state — relieve women of some of their traditional responsibilities and take care of children, the sick and elderly . From here the idea was formed about the need to expand the functions of the state, about its transformation into social state, called to take care of the common welfare, the weak and poor, the disabled and pensioners.

The objectives of the women's movement of the first wave of feminism were:

Ø requirements equal pay for equal work with men;

Ø access to those professions to which they were trying to be kept out, etc.;

Ø defense by working women of their special social, civil, political interests;

Ø mastering the spheres of civil and party-political life;

Ø protection of women’s rights to work, decent remuneration, education, social guarantees for the protection of motherhood and childhood, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly .

To the beginning of XX V. women's movement turns into a massive, multi-component one. The following are active in its vein:

Ø suffragettes , seeking to extend universal suffrage to women;

Ø socialists , concerned about the recognition of women’s right to work, to fair pay, to participate on an equal basis with men in trade union organizations;

Ø radical feminists , promoting the ideas of conscious motherhood and birth control;

Ø women's charities of all kinds and types, including Christian women's organizations.

In order to get on its feet and gain strength, the women's movement was in dire need of ideological support, some theoretical justification that would help it resist the oppression of traditional morality and achieve changes in bourgeois legislation. The task was difficult, since the majority of ideologists - philosophers, historians, sociologists - were completely convinced of the civil inferiority and insolvency of women. Both conservatives and liberals spoke in unison about the natural or “natural” purpose of each of the sexes.

Only a few dared to challenge these dogmas. One of them, social philosopher C. Fourier in his work " Four Movement Theory", which appeared as a result of the author's reflection on the events of the Great French Revolution, wrote: " Expansion of women's rights is the main principle of social progress ».

Another the great utopist A. de Saint-Simon, dying, left a mysterious thought as a legacy to his students: “ A man and a woman are a full-fledged social individual " Both of them developed ideal projects for a harmonious, fairly organized social life, the basis of which, according to their plan, was to be equality of women and men.

Later, the authoritative English thinker John Stuart Mill. His book " Subordination of a woman"received wide popularity; it was translated into many languages, including Russian. And feminists themselves were looking for justification for their activities. Representatives of suffragism were distinguished by the greatest theoretical activity : English womenX . Taylor, M. Fuller , American women L. Mott, E. S. Santon and etc.

But at that time they played a special role in the conceptual understanding of the social significance of the movement for women’s equality. Marxists. They defined the entire complex of demands formulated by this movement as the “women’s question” and offered their answer to it . The main approaches to the women's issue are set out in the famous work F. Engels « Origin of the family, private property and the state" K. Marx shared the concept of the book; it was jointly thought out and, as it were, continued the traditions of C. Fourier and A. de Saint-Simon . However, unlike its predecessors, Marx and Engels they wrote not so much about the individual, whether a woman or a man, who should be endowed with all civil rights and freedoms, how much about the masses - the masses of workers . They turned to them, explaining that the idea of the “natural purpose” of gender essentially masks a special kind of “relations of production” - relations of reproduction of the human race . The whole mystery of these relationships is not connected with the “sacrament” of gender, but with the fact that they are simultaneously natural, biological, and social. And also - these are relations of social inequality arising from the unequal and unfair division of labor, in which the wife and children are actually slaves of the husband and father . Therefore, any the traditional family form automatically reproduces relations of dominance/subordination.

The founders of Marxism argued that industrial Revolution dealt an irreparable blow to such a family. Women's wage labor, no matter how hard it was, created the economic prerequisites for the independence and independence of working women. He started destroy the foundations of the old family and traditional family relationships , dooming women to a servile existence. This is the positive meaning of hired female labor.

In addition, the classics of Marxism emphasized, The position of women hired workers is a class position. They belong to the proletarian class . That's why the task of liberating them from social inequality coincides with the task of liberating the proletariat. The destruction of all forms of exploitation and oppression is the common goal of proletarians and women. Only in a society free from exploitation and oppression are equal relations between men and women possible .

This is, in the most general terms, the Marxist approach to the problems of women's equality. He corresponded to his time and its evidence. There was only one problem. Marxists considered this approach to be the only correct one, and therefore they resolutely distinguished themselves from all other advocates of women's equality. The suffragists, who sought recognition of women's political rights, especially suffered from them. Marxists believed that the demands of the suffragettes in their own way legitimized the bourgeois political system . And therefore they attached the label “bourgeois” to these demands, and to “classical” liberal feminism itself. And they waged a fierce struggle against the suffragettes, as representatives of the bourgeois system. . Up until the 60s. XX V. this struggle split the women's movement, weakening it and causing it irreparable damage.

Nevertheless, the women's movement managed, step by step, to win a space of freedom for women, to change morals, laws, and traditions. As a result of the slow, “creeping” gains of feminism at the end XIX - first half XX V. women managed to achieve :

Ø rights to education;

Ø to equal work and wages with men;

Ø later - to receive the right to vote and the right to be elected, first to local, then to the highest echelons of power;

Ø the right to join trade union organizations and political parties;

Ø right to divorce;

Ø in some places - on the use of contraceptives and abortion;

Ø the right to state assistance for pregnancy and childbirth, maternity leave, etc.

All directions of the women's movement, each in its own way, helped women in one way or another get used to the new role of a subject of history for them. The activities of supporters of Marxism and the activities of suffragettes brought tangible results. Under the pressure of the latter, in particular, women were finally provided voting right. First time this happened in New Zealand in 1893, then - in Australia in 1896, in Finland in 1906.

5.The second wave of the women's movement - neofeminism

But it turned out that obtaining civil rights is only part of the task. Other no less complex part of it - learn to use these rights. This also took time and special efforts on the part of women's organizations. For some time, the painstaking, grassroots activities of these organizations remained virtually unnoticed. However at the turn of the 60-70s. XX century the rapid rise of the women's movement began , which was called second wave. The women's movement gained momentum during the turbulent student performances and led to such dramatic changes in the behavior of women that sociologists were forced to talk about the “peaceful women’s revolution” as the only revolution that took place XX century

The ideological basis for this movement was studying neofeminism, whose slogans were aimed not only at protecting the socio-economic and political rights of women, but also at overcoming traditional ideas that the main purpose of women is procreation, that the main meaning of their lives comes down to performing reproductive functions, and therefore giving birth to children is their main responsibility .

Following radical feminists XIX V. neofeminists insisted that motherhood from the category “responsibilities”» should be reclassified "women's rights. In this context they they sought recognition of the right to prevent pregnancy, the possibility of its termination, and raised the issue of “conscious motherhood” and “family planning.” And they talked about it loudly, putting forward the slogan: “ Our womb belongs to us!” In this approach, a woman’s appropriation of her “womb,” her body, was thought of as equivalent to the appropriation of her destiny.

Neo-feminism formed under the influence of ideas formulated Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) - French writer and existentialist philosopher. She was one of those Western feminists who for quite a long time were convinced of the fruitfulness of the Marxist model of women's liberation - liberation through labor and proletarian revolution. However, despite her initially sacred faith in the cause of socialism, she still had certain doubts about the self-sufficiency of the Marxist approach to transforming relations between the sexes. It was these doubts that prompted her to write a special work on the status of women - two-volume work “The Second Sex”. The book was published in 1949 first in France, and a little later in almost all Western countries. IN 1997 The book was also published in Russia. Three generations of Western women grew up reading this book, revering it as new Bible. IN THE USA had a comparable influence in the 60s. last century book Betty Friedan (1921-2006) “The Feminine Mystique” published in 1963 g. In Russia it was released in 1994 called " The mystery of femininity» .

Without entering into direct polemics with Marxists, S. De Beauvoir shifted the emphasis from the problem of the collective struggle of the proletariat, as a guarantee of such liberation, to the problem of the personal formation of a woman as a subject. That is, it restored the theme of emancipation in its true meaning. This approach was natural for the existentialist philosopher of the atheistic movement, to which S. de Beauvoir belonged. In her system of views, the concepts of free will, freedom of choice, self-realization of the individual and its true existence occupy the main place. For S. de Beauvoir, the only obvious reality of existence is man himself, in whose nature there is nothing predetermined, predetermined, there is no “essence”. This essence is made up of his actions, it is the result of all the choices he has made in life. A person is free to develop the abilities inherent in him or to sacrifice himself to circumstances , conventions, prejudices. Only a person himself is able to fill his life with meaning. .

That is why in the center of her attention — not the “female masses” and their “collective struggle », and the female personality and its “situation” in history, given by physiology and anatomy, psychology and social norms and rules. S. de Beauvoir concentrates his analysis mainly on the topic of interpersonal relations between men and women - relationships "One" And "Other" seen through the prism of “true being” - the existence of a person capable of consciously building his life, filling it with meaning and purpose .

From these positions, S. de Beauvoir re-reads the myths and legends about the “mystery of sex,” “the purpose of a woman,” and “the mystery of the female soul.” It is obvious to her that such a riddle does not exist in principle. In the heat of controversy she formulates his famous thesis: « One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman" The thesis is extremely controversial, provocative, which will cause a flurry of criticism from both convinced anti-feminists and feminists.

Of course she does not deny the biological difference between a man and a woman in general - “male” and “female” as natural principles . She denies the direct dependence between different levels of human life , denies Sigmund Freud with his thesis “anatomy is destiny.” And it proves that the biological difference between a man and a woman does not at all imply their social difference, when one is a master and the other is his slave. This distribution of roles not given in advance, not predetermined once and for all, but imposed by very specific socio-historical circumstances . It happened at the dawn of history , when a man was assigned the sphere of “constructing the meaning of life” - the sphere of culture, and a woman was assigned the sphere of reproduction of life itself - the sphere of “nature”. On this basis, over time, there arise stereotypes of social consciousness, identifying culture with men and nature with women.

S. de Beauvoir emphasizes that since it was male activity that formed the concept of human existence as a value that raises this activity above the dark forces of nature, conquers nature itself, and at the same time woman, then a man in everyday life consciousness has always appeared and appears as a creator, creator, subject, master. A woman is only as a part of natural forces and as an object of his power. The thesis “one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman” is directed against this prejudice. S. de Beauvoir thus seeks to dispel any doubts that Initially, a woman has the same potentials, the same abilities for the manifestation of free will, for transcendence, for self-development, as in a man. Their suppression breaks a woman’s personality and does not allow a woman to develop as a person. The conflict between the initial ability to be a subject and the imposed role of an object of someone else’s power determines the peculiarity of “women’s destiny.” But S. de Beauvoir is convinced that this conflict is gradually being resolved. The desire for freedom prevails over the stereotypes of traditional behavior of women and men. Confirmation of this is the appearance of major female personalities in history, the development of ideas of women's equality, and the women's movement itself.

Still “The Second Sex” remains the most complete historical and philosophical study on the status of women practically from the creation of the world to the present day. Here the failures and achievements of the women's movement of past years are summed up and the basis is prepared for its further development as a collective action that helps the formation of a free, “autonomous” female personality, capable of “appropriating” her own life, starting with the appropriation of her “body” .

Contemporaries of S. de Beauvoir did not dare to turn this idea into a guide to action. Their daughters dared - non-feminists. They, spiritual heirs of S. de Beauvoir owe her, first of all, the fact that they began to evaluate themselves and their lives by new standards - the standards of a free person . Awakening social female consciousness or, in other words, awakening in women the desire to live the life of a full-fledged person is the main achievement of neofeminism.

Not all neofeminists were ready to fully follow S. de Beauvoir and see in a woman a being that differs from a man only in her ability to bear children. Some of them, for example, French women L. Irie-garey, E. Cixous and others, based on the theory of essentialism (from lat. essentia - essence), defend the idea about the special female subjectivity, specificity of the feminine principle. On this basis they they talk about a woman’s right not to copy the male standard of social behavior, but to live in history in her own way, in accordance with female nature , in other words, defend the right to be different from a man.

For supporters of S. de Beauvoir , convinced of fundamental similarity, even equality of personality in man , whether a man or a woman, in principle there is no such female “essence” and there cannot be. In their opinion, being a woman is not a calling, not a purpose. A woman should be able to realize herself as a person - in work, in creativity, in self-development.

Supporters "right to difference" argued that all previous history and culture was built in accordance with the male vision of the world, with male tastes, preferences - the world is "masculinized"". Therefore, entering history as its subject, a woman must contrast her own, feminine standards and stereotypes with men . Without affirming their special view of the world, history and culture, women risk losing their identity and simply dissolving, disappearing into a “male” society. Supporters of Simone de Beauvoir, "egalitarian"(from French egalite - equality) feminists reproached their girlfriends for the fact that they base all their conclusions on the level of sexuality and its manifestations, that for them “the sign of gender is the main and ubiquitous one.”

The dispute between these versions of feminism quickly spread beyond the boundaries of their “family.” Representatives of all human sciences - biologists, physiologists, psychologists, anthropologists, ethnographers, philosophers, historians, philologists - were drawn into it. This also happened because since mid-1970s. under the pressure of feminists in Western universities everywhere centers for “women’s” “feminist” studies with special programs emerged . Main the task of such centers — identify and define features - or lack thereof - feminine “beginning”, feminine view of the world, feminine values.

With the development of these studies, the feminist debate was not only not resolved, but finally drove in different directions the proponents of the “egalitarian” and “differentiated” approach to the definition of female identity . Their a way out of the impasse of this dispute was proposed by researchers who based their analysis on the basis of the comparative characteristics of the “male” and “female” principles . At the center of their analysis was concept of "gender". So gender studies emerged, which very quickly won their place both in academic sciences and in educational centers. The concept of “gender” in the 80-90s. of the last century were adopted as a research tool by sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, psychologists, economists, etc.

IN last decades XX century,Despite internal disputes, feminist theory is also experiencing a period of rapid development. Within radical feminism seriously the concept of patriarchy is clarified and supplemented . This is what American women do S. Firestone, K. Millett, French K. Delphi etc. Radical feminism is convinced that gender differences are the most profound and politically significant divide in society. All societies, past and present, according to this view, are characterized patriarchy - a system that allows , according to the expression Kate Millett, « one half of humanity - men - to keep the other half - women in check " Radical feminism proclaims the need for a kind of sexual revolution - a revolution that, among other things, will restructure not only political, but also personal, domestic and family life . Characteristic the slogan of radical feminism is “the personal is political”" However, it does not go so far as to see a man as an “enemy” - only in its most extreme forms does radical feminism call on women to completely “remove themselves from male society.”

In the works D. Mitchell, N. Chodorow, K. Killigan, G. Rabin etc. is being further developed psychoanalytic feminism, which focuses not on the special role of the father and the Oedipus complex (which is characteristic of the founder of psychoanalysis, Z. Freud), but on the pre-Oedipal period, when the child is in a special way connected with the mother. From the point of view of feminist psychoanalysts, first of all imaginary fear of the mother, inherent in childhood, determines the motivation for the behavior of adult individuals . Psychoanalytic feminism played a certain role in drawing attention to the social nature of not only fatherhood, but also motherhood, and raising the problems of education (especially by women).

Under the influence of the great French philosopher Michel Foucault, who developed a new “capillary” theory of power, as well as such prominent theorists of poststructuralism as J. Lacan, J. Derrida, R. Barthes, J. Deleuze, F. Guattari, postmodern feminism or postfeminism. Its largest representatives include such diverse researchers as D. Butler, R. Braidotti, M. Wittig, Y. Kristevu and etc.

6.Feminism at the beginning XXI century

Today, postfeminism is considered perhaps the most authoritative branch of feminist criticism, although opponents rightly reproach its representatives for incompleteness, internal contradictions in mental developments, and vagueness of the concepts used. However, it is within the framework of postfeminism there has been a semantic increment to feminist knowledge . Postfeminist managed to offer a new interpretation of the “differences” in subjectivity- not as marginality, exceptions from culture, not as deviations from the norm, but as some kind of value. In such a paradigm, any “other” (other subjectivity) receives its full status in history, and any “other” is recognized as having the right to a full existence. This approach affirms the versatility, diversity, diversity of social space, which is kept in tension not by one central conflict, not by one contradiction - class, racial or national, but by many different conflicts, different contradictions, in different ways. and permitted.

For today's feminism, the concept of “diversity” is basic. One of its largest representatives, American historian J. Scott emphasizes : “Modern feminist theories do not assume fixed relationships between entities, but interpret them as the changing effects of temporal, cultural or historical specificity, power dynamics... Neither individual nor collective identity exists without the Other; inclusion does not exist without exclusion, the universal does not exist without the rejected particular, there is no neutrality that would not give preference to any of the points of view behind which someone's interests stand, power plays an essential role in all human responsibilities. wearing... For us, differences are a fact of human existence, an instrument of power, an analytical tool and a feature of feminism as such.”

Active during this period Sociologists classify women's organizations in different ways: based on their goals and objectives, methods of action, ideological postulates. The most recognized is their basic division into two streams: liberal and radical.

Liberal women's organizations - This reformist, moderate, mass associations seeking equal rights for women with men through political methods , legally recognized by society. The main types of activity of liberal organizations are lobbying, petitions to courts and legislatures to change laws and institutions in favor of women.

Radical women's organizations As a rule, they adhere to left-wing views - from Marxist and neo-Marxist to the far left and focus on activities “at the roots of the grass”, achieving the “growth of consciousness” of women on a personal level .

The political context of a given country significantly influences the strategy of women's organizations. US women's organizations operate within an “open” political system with entrenched lobbying rules . Hence their scope and focus on using their own Women's Lobby in Congress(The Women's Lobby was founded back in 1972, during the promotion of the Equal Rights Amendment.)

In Francewith its powerful party system in those same years women's organizations use “party-oriented” forms of activity : they seek the adoption by parties of special quotas that guarantee the integration of women not only into the electoral process, but in general into the political process; changes in party programs, which include demands for gender equality.

In Germanycoexist and strong independent women's organizations , And powerful women's factions in political parties, trade unions . Women's interest groups engaged in lobbying have also emerged. In some countries, for example in Iceland, Sweden to protect women's rights arise and are successful Women's and Feminist parties are active .

The women's movement in all its forms has managed to have a significant impact on changing social norms and rules. Under his influence has begun , For example, a real breakthrough for women in politics . Women take charge of the work of local authorities, become mayors of cities, municipal councilors, deputies of regional councils, deputies of parliaments, heads of government and even presidents. According to the UN at first XXI century. women have led and are leading - as presidents or prime ministers - the following countries : Bangladesh, Ireland, Latvia, New Zealand, Australia, Panama, San Marino, Switzerland, Finland, Sri Lanka, Germany, Argentina, Chile, Brazil. Under their leadership was about 10% of the world's parliaments. Women are trying not only to master the entire political space, but declare their intention to radically change its rules and content - to make the policy more humane, people-oriented .

7.Feminist traditions in Russia

Russia also has its own feminist tradition. The development of the women's movement began in our country around from the middle XIX centuryand was associated with a number of historical features. The point, first of all, is that initially the women's movement was formed here not in the crucible of the bourgeois revolution, but only on the approaches to it, which lasted for a good half century. If the first slogans of Western women's organizations were slogans of civil and political equality for women, then the demands of Russian women's organizations emphasized issues of women's labor and women's education. Russian feminists, who at that time were they called equal rights, have achieved remarkable results in their own way. In particular, it is with their support, higher education for women has become a recognized value of our fellow citizens . But the issues of civil and political rights of women were relegated to the background. Perhaps that is why it still remains poorly mastered by the public consciousness.

The first period in the development of the women's movement in Russia — from the reform of 1861 to the revolution of 1905 When the results are summed up, among the undoubted achievements of equal rights they name opening of “women’s medical courses” at the Medical-Surgical Academy in St. Petersburg in 1871 g. and Higher Women's Courses at St. Petersburg University in 1878 G. Back to top XX century. in almost all large cities of Russia there were women's courses, both higher and specialized : medical, as well as polytechnic, agricultural, architectural etc. Almost all of these courses owed their emergence to private and public initiative and the influence of women. Thanks to them, back to the beginning XX V. Russia was in second place in the world (immediately after England) in the number of women who received higher education .

The question of women’s civil and political rights did not arise during this period - no one had these rights under the conditions of an absolute monarchy. Revolution 1905 changed the situation in the country. The male half of Russian society in accordance with Nicholas’s Manifesto II received at that moment certain civil and political rights and freedoms, women did not receive civil recognition. And they began to achieve it, including in their demands the slogans of civil and political equality . From now on the second stage in the development of the domestic women's movement begins which will last until the revolutions of 1917

The women's movement has become much more diverse and multi-component in these years, and its ideological forms have become more complex. However target all its streams one — equalization of women in civil and political rights with men. On the eve of the 1917 revolution, the women's movement was a significant socio-political force in Russia. His achievements provided such a margin of safety for the ideas of gender equality that they forced the new government that arose during the revolution to take these ideas into account and even include them in the program for building a new society.

By decrees adopted in December 1917, the Bolsheviks provided women with full civil rights and freedoms, making them equal to men before the law. . True, simultaneously with the publication of these decrees all independent women's associations were banned . The Soviet government took upon itself the task of defending women's interests. Thus a completely new phenomenon arose - "state feminism" or special state policy towards women , within the framework of which the “emancipation” of Soviet women was now carried out.

The state and the ruling party took care of the ones they first formed “ women's departments", then " women's councils». « The drive belt of the party was also considered Soviet Women's Committee , created in 1946 . He was mainly involved in contacts with anti-fascist organizations abroad, and later became an association of “women’s councils” . Soviet women's organizations did not raise the issue of gender equality. They propagated party decisions that spoke of the need to “improve the situation of women " This means that they were not subjects of collective action in the truest sense of the concept. Using the concept of the famous Russian historian Yu.S. Pivovarova, we can say that “subjective energy” of women's organizations, like other civil associations, was appropriated by the party-state . Democracy, human rights, women's rights were illusory concepts in these conditions . AND This is the second feature of the Russian women's movement. The weak civic potential of women, insufficient awareness of human rights issues, emancipation in the conditions of authoritarian modernization, within the boundaries established by the state - this is the historical legacy that modern women's organizations in Russia have received and which cannot but affect their current activities.

“Perestroika” of the era of M.S. Gorbachev and the liberal reforms that began after it potentially opened up new opportunities for the development of civil initiatives, for updating the issue of human rights, including women’s rights. This means for the formation of an independent women's movement. The first women's groups that declared themselves independent organizations began to appear in 1988-1989. Since then, independent women's organizations have, in one way or another, tried to become a definite factor in public life. In conditions when the main burden of the social consequences of reforms fell on the shoulders of women, they sought to help their compatriots survive — acquire new professions, maintain health, solve problems with difficult children, drug-addicted children, find psychological support and shelter in case of violence, etc. Engaged in legal and gender education of fellow citizens , lobbying for the interests of women at the level of legislative and executive power, gender expertise of legislative acts and other government decisions . They raised the question of the need to promote women in power structures.

It is important to emphasize that as the activities of women’s organizations develop, the process of “denationalization” of the very task of equalizing the social status of women begins. Dissatisfied with the position of women in society, their activists intend to take responsibility for their lives and their own, for its specific problems. In their associations they try to do what the state cannot or does not provide for them to do for them.

At the end of the 20th century.was registered only by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation about 650 women's associations. To these should also be added those organizations that were registered at the regional or local levels, as well as those that were not registered at all. Generally in the regions of the country, according to official statistics, at that time there was about 15 thousand women's associations.

Certain women's organizations (for example, movement "Women of Russia") have gained experience in participating in these decades various types election campaigns and even parliamentary experience ( faction "Women of Russia" in State Duma in 1993-1995). Other women's organizations were busy either searching for forms of interaction with the authorities, developing “social partnership,” or grassroots activities “at the roots of the grass.”

The further development of the women's movement in Russia will largely depend on the persistence of its activists, their ability to influence public life - provided that the authorities see them as allies, not opponents, and begin to provide them with at least moral support. support rather than opposition.

Thus, world feminist worldview , represented by many directions , is independent and in an original way perception and explanation of the world . In the future, its transformation into ideology is not excluded.

Literature

Aivazova S.G. Russian women in the labyrinth of equality. M., 1998.

Ai-vazova S.G. Gender equality in the context of human rights. M., 2001.

Aivazova S.G. Feminism // Political Science: Lexicon / Ed. A.I. Solovyov. M., 2007. P.708-724.

Anthology of gender theory / Compiled by E. Gapova, A. Usmanova. Minsk, 2000.

Beauvoir de S. The Second Sex. M.; St. Petersburg, 1997. T. 1-2.

Introduction to Gender Studies: Tutorial/ Ed. I.A. Zherebkina. St. Petersburg.. 2001.

Voronina O.A. Feminism and gender equality. M., 2004.

Malysheva M.M. Modern patriarchy. M., 2001.

Friedan B. The Mystery of Femininity. Per. from English M., 1994.

Khasbulatova O.A., Gafizova N.B. Women's movement in Russia. Ivanovo, 2003.

The definition of “feminism” arose much later than the phenomenon itself. One by oneNoah version, it was introduced into circulation by Alexander Dumas the son, author of the famous novel “Lady with camellias." He supposedly invented it at the end XIX c., when feminism strengthened, it became a sociala vitally significant fact.

Suffragettes (from the English Suffrage - suffrage) - participants in the movement to give women voting rights in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in the UK, USA and other countries.

Mary Wollstonecraft was married to the anarchist William Godwin; her daughter Mary Shelley is the author of the famous Frankenstein.

Betty Friedan is one of the leaders of American feminism. She advocated for full rights for women, on equal terms with men. wages before participating in the political life of the country, and the abolition of the ban on abortion. In 1966, Friedan created the National Organization for Women and became its president.

From B. Friedan’s book “The Femininity Mystique”: “A man is not our enemy, but a friend in misfortune. The real enemy is women's self-deprecation", "Most women do not have a wife to take care of the "little things in life", "Women have nothing to lose but their vacuum cleaners."

Masculinity (from Latin masculinus, male) is a complex of bodily, mental and behavioral characteristics (secondary sexual characteristics) considered masculine.

His recognized theorist was the famouschanged Alexandra Kollontai, who still worshiped by many Westerners feminists.