What kind of image should Russian women
politicians stick to? We have asked Ekaterina Yurievna Sobchik, Deputy
Director of the Institute of Applied Psychology, to share her ideas on
this subject.
In this country, it is still widely believed
that politics is, largely speaking, not a suitable field of activity for
women. The life of a politician is governed by the laws of a hard rivalry
and of the struggle for power, and the people, who begin to live under
these laws, in no time grow callous of the heart and shed all the sprites
of humaneness, while hardness and masterfulness take an upper hand in them
and their behaviour grows more aggressive and authoritative; they are no
longer prepared to make compromises and they start to be much more categorical.
This style of behaviour is typical of men rather than of women; and, as
the general opinion holds it, a woman, who gets involved in politics, must
be business-like, prevailed by the cold reason, and as hard as iron, like
Margaret Thatcher. The anti-feminist attitudes have struck a deep root
in our society, so that incomparably higher demands are made on women,
engaged in politics, than on men.
A woman politician will be listened to only if her standard of competence
in fact towers above that of her male colleagues. The demands, made on
the "strong sex", are much lower, and many things are just forgiven
to them; and this is why there is a higher percentage of incompetent men
among the politicians, than of incompetent women. Many men are striving
to join the big politics in order to be able to establish new links and
contacts, and to be granted the Deputy's status of inviolability. Their
political responsibility is in some cases close to nil. The majority of
women in Russia have not yet achieved an awareness of their personal responsibility
for the destinies of the state. But those of them, who have become seriously
involved in the politics, are highly responsible persons and, as a rule,
successfully tackle concrete tasks and problems.
However, let us go back to the politician's image, which is closely
connected with the manner of behaviour. A graphical example is Mr. Zhirinovsky.
All of us feel a sort of discomfort when we are listening to some orators'
clamorous speeches from the tribune. This manner of speechifying is irritable
on the whole, but when the floor is taken by the leader of the LDPR, people
just get glued to the TV screen in anticipation of yet another circus trick.
And this is understandable, because an artfully built up image of a clown
has turned Mr. Zhirinovsky's wild yells and scandalous behaviour into an
additional trump card, attracting to him more and more attention. Yet those,
who are not after participation in a circus, must remember that, even though
politics is an emotional affair, a certain sense of measure is still indispensable.
Many women politicians are the losers just on account of their excessive
emotionality. It is a sad spectacle, indeed, when a woman is giving an
unrestrained vent to her emotions from the tribune. You have an impetus
to switch your TV set to another programme or just to leave the room: it
looks as if somebody has by mistake let loose a market vendor on the tribune.
It is very important to bear it in mind that a public delivery of a statement
from the high rostrum presupposes a good voice training.
The women's style of behaviour in politics has yet to be created, and
there are many obstacles to be overcome on this road. In my opinion, women
politicians, who try to profit by their affiliation to the fair sex, are
making a grave mistake. When I hear from the tribune the words: "Being
a woman, I want to say...", or "Being a woman, I ask for another
three minutes for my statement", I have an uneasy feeling that, on
the one hand, a struggle for the gender equality is on, but on the other,
a mean haggling is taking place for some trifling privileges. This is both
dishonest and inconsistent.
It is much better when a woman, who gets involved in politics, introduces
a feminine, humanistic principle into it, like, for example, Ella Panfilova.
She is winning people over with her gentleness, femininity and high principles,
and gives an impression of an honest, decent person, who spares no effort
at her disposal to improve things. Irina Hakamada personifies a different
type of behaviour, which is highly reasonable, cool and devoid of any emotion.
She speaks in a well trained voice, is always calm and even-tempered. Even
if the things she deals with are neither interesting nor comprehensive,
the magic of her nice intelligent voice makes you lend an ear and try to
catch her point. The behavioural style of these two women, actively engaged
in politics, is graphically distinct; nevertheless, each of them has managed
to create a unique image, which entitles them to everybody's trust and
sympathy.
