By David Crespo and Isabela Ferreira

The Soviet state promoted gender equality and female liberation. The ‘New Soviet Woman’, both a model worker and mother, was to be a symbol of modernity and progress.

According to Soviet theorists, the family under capitalism exists as a means of “producing children of undisputed paternity as heirs to man’s property”

Under Communism, because there is no property “heirs are not needed and hence the domination of men over women is superfluous because ‘there is no stimulus whatever here to assert male domination’”.

Therefore, classical Marxism does not deal with pre-existing patriarchal attitudes because it denies their existence (Buckley 31)

Soviet Theorists and the Woman Question

“Marx and Engels said little about equality on a theoretical level” (Buckley 32)

Soviet theorist largely continued this tradition, placing most of their emphasis on the assumption that gender equality will simply “happen” once property is abolished and education is made universal

Marx, Engels, and Lenin all agreed that turning housework into a public industry would free women from “household bondage” (Buckley 33)

Soviet Theorists and the Woman Question

A “women’s department” of the party, the Zhenotdel, was set up in 1919

It was looked upon with scorn by much of the party and much of the population, especially Muslims

“Notwithstanding this opposition to women’s liberation […], extensions to Marxist theory were made, in particular regarding domestic labour, maternity and sexuality.” (Buckley 38)

The Zhenotdel

After Stalin’s rise to power, women’s issues were quickly subordinated to large-scale endeavors of agricultural collectivization and the Five-Year Plans of industrialization

“Soviet academic literature from the 1930s to the 1960s was sparse, because the woman question was seen as a closed question. It had been answered, so the argument went, because women had been emancipated.”

The Woman Question “Solved”

The Woman Question “Solved”Quote from Vera Bil’shai, typical of the period:

“The solution to the woman question occupies one of the top places among the great achievements of Soviet socialist construction”

Believing the woman question to have been resolved, the Politburo dissolved the Zhenotedel in January 1930 (Scheide 20).

The myth of the Soviet heroine was created as a symbol of the exemplary woman.

“Under Stalin, or so state propaganda claimed, material conditions had changed so dramatically that Soviet superwomen were to be found in every corner of the Union: on collective farms, in the military, in educational circles and institutions of higher learning, in factories, in the field of sports, even in the tunnels of the Moscow metro,” (Chatterjee 51).

International Women’s Day, celebrated by March 8, became a significant date for discussing issues relating to women.

During the events, the achievements of exemplary women were celebrated and Soviet heroines were invited to recount their inspiring life stories. Influential party members, including Stalin himself, attended these celebrations. (Chatterjee 53)

Several Soviet newspapers and journals displayed images of women driving tractors.

TractoristkaTractors were to play a fundamental role in

agricultural development. Thus, images of tractoristka were symbols of both female liberation and economic progress. (Illic 112)

Between 1926 and 1937, the number of women tractor drivers in the Soviet Union rose from 14 to 57,000 (113).

Rabotnitsa (The Woman Worker), a women’s leisure magazine, was the primary medium for woman-targeted propaganda.

While Western magazines targeted women as consumers and housewives, Rabotnitsa promoted change by encouraging women to join production and find solutions to ease the domestic burden. (Attwood 31)

The importance of entertainment and leisure was emphasized. “The state wanted to get as much work as it could from women, while pretending they were cosseted and pampered,” (44).

In the 1920’s, Rabotnitsa portrayed fashion and cosmetics as vestiges of bourgeois society. Women were expected to wear clothes suitable for labor, like the women depicted on the cover.

“Our beauty…lies in simplicity, in reality, in the rouge of hot blood”-- Rabotnitsa. (Attwood 34)

In the 1930’s, the magazine promoted the idea that femininity was not incompatible with hard work. Women were encouraged to cultivate a feminine appearance. (40)

As the state called for rapid industrialization, women entered the work force in increasing numbers. By 1935, women comprised 42 percent of the labor force (Goldman 69).

“The party’s decision abruptly elevated women, long scorned for their backwardness and lack of skills, to a crucial position in the industrialisation drive,” (70).

A labor shortage in 1930, prompted the party to launch a propaganda campaign to recruit 1.6 million women by the end of 1931.

The All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions’ (ACCTU) campaign was launched mainly for economic purposes: to meet the labor shortage and increase means of production. The campaign was also used a political weapon against the right deviation. Andrei Zhenadov, leader of the Nizhegorod party committee, blamed discriminatory practices against women workers on old conservative leadership.

Despite the ACCTU’s efforts, managers and local officials retained traditional prejudices on the role of female labor. They were reluctant to place women in skilled labor, such as in production or at the bench. Instead, women were hired to work in “support” or janitorial services, which were unskilled and poorly paid.

“This view…was not based on a chivalric notion of protecting the ‘weaker sex’. Men did not object to women doing, heavy, dirty, unskilled, or even dangerous labour, they objected to women in skilled work, at the machine and in production,” (70).

Managers justified their prejudices objectively, claiming that women did not have the education and training for skilled positions. However, even when women were trained for skilled jobs, managers would explain that no machines were available and send them to do unskilled work. One woman worker recalls: “This is how we approach female labor, they studied a certain skill, and they put them back to work with a broom…What did they study for?” (75)

Most saw the employment of women in production as a waste of resources. A central mechanical master provides a typical argument: “There’s a good reason why I won’t permit women at the bench. You skill them and then they get married and the work is ruined. What does the government want to spend money on this for?” (76)

Opposition was met not only at the higher levels of production; male workers frequently harassed women on the job.

A woman’s position remained stagnant in the factory hierarchy as promotion to a leadership position was rare.

Unions, factory committees, and both local and party departments of labor did little to counter male prejudices. No organizational effort (especially after the liquidation of the Zhenotdel) existed to promote women’s interests.

By summer 1931, 36 jobs had been designated as exclusively for women. The professions covered several branches of the economy, and included the textile, construction, metal, and machine building industries.

Still, managers refused to cooperate with the new strategy unless directly confronted by the brigades.

In December 1930 and January 1931, the Commissarat of Labor attempted to “regender” the workforce by issuing decrees designating certain jobs to be occupied exclusively by women. The strategy was to be executed by brigades appointed by the ACCTU.

Male professions were distinguished from female professions based on the nature of the work they required. Male workers were transferred to heavier labor.

Soviet women had to endure what Western scholars call the ‘double burden’, which refers to their duties in both the labor force and the household.

In the 1930’s, the standard of living became unbearably low. Shortages in food, clothing, and housing were felt most bitterly by women, whose duty it was to provide for and protect the family.

Women were most vociferous in demanding improvements in the welfare of children.

They participated in strikes and protests against policies such as the end of bread rationing, price raises, and state loans. (Davies 95-96)

Today is a clear dayMerry childrenPlay and danceKnow no cares

But at home mummyToils and knows notWhat to cook themFor dinner

How to clothe and shoeHer own childrenMummy doesn’t knowWhere to get shoes

They need coats They need bootsWorriesPoor mother

(Davies 93)

In the 1920’s, women were granted a handful of legal rights that gave them greater control over domestic life.

These rights included: “the right to divorce on far more lenient grounds than had been possible before the revolution, extensive maternity entitlements, health and safety measures at work, and the right to abortion on demand” (Illic 3).

Both industrialization and the legalization of abortion caused a steady decline in the birth rate. In the early 1930’s, the number of abortions was almost double the number of births: in 1934, there were 15.9 births compared to 48.2 abortions per thousand people.

As a result, in 1934-5 the state launched a new campaign promoting the Soviet family.

A decree issued in 1936 made divorce more difficult and expensive and outlawed abortion. (Davies 100-1)

The decree of 1936 also set down strict rules for alimony payments, which required parents to set aside a certain portion of income for their children. As a result, the number of divorces decreased, but so did the marriages. (102)

New maternity leave regulations were instated. To promote larger families, the state promised

to extend childcare, housing provisions, and economic aid to mothers. (103)

Women’s opinions on the criminilization of abortion differed. Some women supported the ban for ideological reasons. Several opposed it on economic grounds.

Women had resorted to abortion because of inadequate income and housing.

One woman argued, “How can you say no to an abortion when your family consists of five people and you have 14 meters living space?” (Davies 104)

The Rabotnitsa encouraged women to engage in a “cooperative movement.” Establishing institutions to collectivize domestic tasks would alleviate individual burdens.

Public dining rooms, housing communes, and laundries would free women from household duties.

Crèches, children’s clinics, and kindergartens were established to ease the maternal burden. (Atwood 33)

The “socialist cities” created for the first Five Year Plan were largely unsuccessful because of inadequate funding.

By the end of the plan, the state no longer backed communal housing.

For the same reasons that legal freedoms were curtailed in the 1930’s, the government ceased funding to reassert traditional domestic values. (Attwood 35)

Women who were not obligated to work under the 1936 Constitution, such as the wives of Stakhanovites (“model workers”), became volunteer workers, or obshchestvennitsy.

“They ran literacy programmes, kindergartens and children’s clubs. They cleaned up the courtyards between apartment blocks. They did ‘sanitary raids’ on canteens , and monitored the quality of the workers’ food. They made sure the hostels for single male workers were clean and cosy, and washed and repaired the men’s bedlinen.” (Attwood 37)