WOMEN IN POWER

Certain countries are associated with categories of masculinity and femininity. For example, Poland is a feminine country, and Germany is eternally masculine. It is impossible to fully associate Russia with a particular gender. In my view, Russia lies in the realm of parent-child relations, and its government and culture are have evolved in accordance with this. The woman in Russia is a symbolic mother, and the man a symbolic son. The mentality of the Russian woman is untiring on the level of physiological care for someone.
Traditionally in Russia, woman is viewed as mother--a giver and therefore controller, a creator and strict parent. Man, however, both assumes and is viewed in the role of son. However, in spite of such a traditional division of roles, woman in reality cannot imagine herself in the higher echelons of power.
Moreover, both before and now, a woman who can talk well, looks successful, is capable of making decisions and living independently, who's not afraid of being seen and who holds a high social status is likely to evoke irritation, and even hostility. I think everyone remembers what the attitude was towards our former first lady, Raisa Gorbacheva. She was compared to the wives of our previous leaders and fared badly in public opinion, although the other women were never shown in public and felt uncomfortable around other people. They were an insignificant part of the official entourage, arriving at the airport and parading quickly before the television cameras.
To this day, a woman who's not afraid to speak for herself, who has the right to vote and do whatever she wants, in the popular mind evokes only one atrocious feeling, expressed with the words "Better you should sit home, wash your husband's and children's shirts, cook dinner and stay in your place". Any comment a woman may make on social issues is a waste of words, as it's greeted with either hostility or belittlement. If a woman allows herself to be mistaken about something, she cannot let her anxiety show. As a result, everything is attributed to the fact that "she's only a woman; what can she know?".
Nevertheless, women are beginning to occupy a natural and necessary niche in government, because the course of historical development in Russia demands it. Women in government is a reality today, one to which no one can close their eyes. It is very important, however, to pay attention to what kind of woman is nowadays found holding power, and what her image is.
We still have a certain collective image which can be related to the female only through the physical attributes of gender. The image which continues to dominate is that of the "workers' leader"; that is, a being sexless in her speech and manners, who can be identified as a woman only through non-sexual characteristics. Such an image is lovingly devoured and encouraged by the mass consciousness.
But if a woman holding power risks proclaiming herself a woman, this evokes bewilderment, confusion, panic, and all sorts of condemnation in her immediate circle. It's considered shameful in the mass consciousness to declare her female origins. Who was the only one from among our women politicians to fight for such a right? Major player Irina Khakamada. It is for this reason that both her image and her appearance differ strongly from Russian stereotypes. She is certainly no delicate flower; she is a symbol of something else entirely, something which is not recognized by the Russian mind as a danger. Her image didn't protect her immediately. They tried to have her removed as some kind of invader from another planet; but this didn't happen, thanks to her brilliance and unforgettability.
Other representatives of the fair sex are trying to find their place these days, but they simply cannot choose between certain collective images--teacher, doctor, Pioneer leader, director and so on--and their own feminine nature. As long as they don't choose, however, life will be difficult for them, and it will be hard for them to be assimilated.
An image brings with it many problems. An image is a social face, that which the person chooses to show to the world. At the same time, it's a defense of the self. It is thanks to the image that one can both achieve a great deal, or bring about ruin.
It's one thing when a deputy/actress steps up to the podium. Nataliya Gundareva, for example. Her image is the basis of her profession; she defends herself successfully, can easily hold an audience, play a social role, and convince herself and others that this is just her latest role. A woman who is not a professional actress still uses the teacher stereotype, interfering with and devaluing everything she has to say. Inevitably, the feeling arises that you're little and helpless; go sit behind your schooldesk! You want to take out your notebook and start doing your homework.
The difficulty of the situation also lies in that a woman with power today feels a sense of guilt in the depths of her soul. It's often obvious that she's uncomfortable behind the podium, as though she's somewhere she doesn't belong. But a woman ought to bear this burden in the awareness that she's properly working her way into the structures of government.
A woman should be aware that in becoming a politician, she will not cease to be a woman. As soon as a woman proclaims "I'm a politician" or "This and that depend on me", she is transformed, and you're dealing with an official who is often unpleasant and seldom pretty. Behind this person lurk fear and shame for her own womanhood, of which she ought to be proud. It is this womanhood which should be placed first, since it contains strength and the creative resources of the individual's psyche.
"A woman's strength is in her weakness"; we're all familiar with this line. But sometimes, this weakness is interpreted incorrectly. A woman's weakness lies not in the fact that she becomes hysterical, smashes dishes, cannot take control of her own life and is dependent on her husband for everything. We should understand weakness as the natural flexibility of the female soul, the ability to refrain from acting as censor, and allow those near her to make decisions for themselves without fearing that her freedom will end at that moment. In a word, her weakness is not weakness of will, but the ability to control her own space without encroaching on the freedom of others. As soon as a woman with power reaches this position, the situation will become one of harmony.
Today, however, both women and men confront each other, rather than trying to fulfil one another. The greatest problem is that a woman entering government service is doomed to being drawn into what is essentially a male struggle, alien to the female mentality. Men see her as a competitor and do their best to get rid of her. Otherwise, it would never be possible to raise their hands against a woman who also happens to be in politics. We know of situations where this has happened, precisely because the men perceive women as competitors. Not even as competitors, but as thieves trying to rob them of something.
Men definitely have this fear that women will always try to rob them of something, whether they're in government or not. This fear is great and often blinds them, depriving them of their common sense. Women virtually are not prone to this fear. I'm not saying this is either good or bad. It is simply a natural difference in the characteristics of both sexes.
A woman with power can effectively protect herself by saying that she's going beyond the limits of competitive struggle. As soon as she looks toward the archetypes--that is, to her own nature--she will be beyond the field of battle. There might arise the question of whether a woman holding any kind of government post can make a decision, and then implement it without delegating power? Isn't this really a male model of behaviour? Can she really remain feminine? I would like to emphasize that the ability to make decisions and implement them is not a gender-specific trait, but a common human one. It's impossible to immediately create an ideal model, one in which there is no competition, repression or submission; but it is for this that we must strive.
In such a policy, there is also areas in which men, as a result of their nature, cannot be competent (just as there are areas in which women cannot be competent). I am advocating here that everyone should occupy their natural niche, in order not to cause harm to themselves or to the social consciousness, which is already suffering. I am for the division into natural spheres of existence and implementation. Everything connected with purely matriarchal problems--national health care, children, culture and the arts--should be the responsibility of women. And the introduction of new social ideas is a particularly male realm.
To say that a woman entering government service should deal only with women's problems would be a systemic error. A woman with vitality should become involved in any issues that interfere with people's right to a decent life, that threaten death and destruction. These issues already affect both women and men, as well as children and the elderly. How did the matriarchal period differ from the patriarchal? Everything was stabilized in the matriarchal; it was not distinguished by the introduction of new ideas (and we know that new ideas are always destructive, causing upheaval in what came before), but their survivability was high, and the accumulation of experience bore fruit. In the patriarchal period, new ideas reached their peak, along with catastrophic change, wars, the division of territory, and high mortality. Each period had its advantages and drawbacks, and since time immemorial these periods have alternated, shaping the course of history. One cannot assert, therefore, that men holding power is natural, and women holding power is unnatural. But women rulers did not stop being women; and when this happened, government flourished.
Today however, the situation is such that men are trying to prove to women that they can get along without them, and women are doing exactly the same thing. Thus, the political arena today has become a field of battle, the foundation of which is competition. If we can symbolically transfer the phases of human development to the mass consciousness, then politics today resembles an arena for the clarification of relations between adolescents of both sexes, and the ritual dances before one another can be compared to prepubescent behaviour. But Russia is a country of parent-child relationships, and the behaviour of men and women in the ranks of government can better be compared with that of primary school students. When the boys who want to get the girls' attention grab them by the pigtails, the latter hit them over the heads with their schoolbags.
BACK TO THE CONTENT
BACK HOME