"We are women": a distorting mirror of Russian feminism in one song

Isn't sexism defeated?

In fact, of course, there is nothing surprising or offensive here. Anyone who believes that feminism has won and the women of All Russia are enthusiastically responsible for their bright future has not left Moscow for a long time.

There is a direct systematic connection between poverty and gender inequality, and if you look for an hour in a town of 10,000 inhabitants, 300 kilometers from the capital, it will become clear for whom Christina is singing. Not for HSE alumni from good families, some of whom might not mind getting married and then living in an endless quantum leap between shopping, brunch and BMW, but they don’t listen to Christina.

It is listened to by girls from 16 to 46, who most likely have not been to Moscow and did not dream of their own Internet startup. Internet startups don't exist in their universe. There is no Uber, sling communities, private hospitals with kind sisters and other attributes of a well-fed life that make feminism universally attractive.

Christina's fans know what awaits them: taking care of the child, home and parents. And work. Not creative, ordinary. Is it strange that they want love and prosperity? And it is hardly surprising that their bright future is a strong family and.

Is it bad to want these things?

The irony of Russian mass culture is that many women (actresses, models, but especially singers) become successful players in this field, speculating on ideals with which they themselves would not sit at the same table.

It's not that Christina didn't want love - we don't have that kind of research - but, being a modern woman of her own, she obviously wanted more than that "little" of the song. At the very least, she wanted to perform on stage on central television and receive a fee for this, with which she could buy a car of any color.

But Christina knew what would resonate with the audience. Or her producer knew. Therefore, she sings not about equality, feminities and a daring move to a big city, like Kerry Bradshaw, but … it is clear about what.

There is a separate cohort of Internet ladies who consider themselves the vanguard of fourth wave feminism, who are convinced that the main task of mass culture is to promote the ideas of patriarchy. They hit the keys in a furious struggle with Beyoncé's deep cleavages (what if girls start dressing like that), happy housewives in ads (how can housewives be happy) and lonely beauties from songs who want - shock! - love and money.

But there is one catch. The main goal of propaganda is to introduce something into the public consciousness, but if mass culture did not respond to the demands of the existing everyday life, it would never reach mass proportions.

Christina's song is not an attempt to convince men and women who are already ready to enlighten to return to the Middle Ages (as if this is possible).

The song is a reflection of reality, which, if you look at the TSUM windows for a long time, you can accidentally forget about.

Imagine that a genie appeared to the women you know and said: “Do you want a rich, generous, loving husband? He will not leave you, he will carry you in his arms, care for and cherish. But on one condition: you will never be able to earn a lot and will not reach career heights. How many would agree? How many men would go to such a thing?

Equality in law does not mean equality in heads. Financial dependence - on a spouse, parents, state - is considered shameful for men over 30, and for women it is almost a variant of the norm. And no matter how backward the feminine dream sung by Christina may seem, she looks more honest than the action films with Mila Jovovich and Charlize Theron about "strong women" who beat the faces of special forces. The latter is fantasy, and Christina is life.

Doesn't Lifehacker have anything else to write about?

There is. Procrastination has not yet been defeated, and there are always discounts on AliExpress. We just don't want to fall into the WEIRD trap.

What does WEIRD have to do with it and why is this word written in capital letters?

W-E-I-R-D (English "strange") is an abbreviation for western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic. She is described as the people who make up 95% of the subjects in psychological research: American university students.

In 2010, a team of scientists demonstrated that because of this specific sample, many of the behaviors that modern science considers universal, in fact, only apply to America, Australia and Western Europe. And then with a stretch.

For example, most of the conclusions about the relationship of generations even in the conservative states of the United States turned out to be inapplicable to Japan, where social and family identity reigns over individual (and in the United States - vice versa).

Simply put: too narrow a point of view distorts perception. What is normal for a product designer from St. Petersburg will be wild for a fisherman from Vladivostok. And vice versa.

The wealthy, educated readers (and writers) of the Lifehacker may decide that equal rights - and equal investments - of the sexes are already a reality, because in our offices, families, TV shows and songs it often is. Why? We were just lucky to live in prosperity, to study at a university, find an interesting job and have a choice.

Not everyone is so lucky. Not everyone can afford "correct" modern dreams, and it is ugly and often hypocritical to condemn people for completely understandable desires. A few serious life troubles can lodge a craving for a strong male shoulder even in a radical feminist. A woman who rejects the negative aspects of patriarchy may be outraged if a man does not offer her help with a heavy bag. And this is also rather a tribute to tradition: no one helps men with bags.

Demonizing the mouthpieces of mass culture for "propaganda" and ridiculing its audience does not improve either us or the culture. But if you get off the white horse of enlightenment and look around, you will notice that:

Traditional values and gender roles have not gone away and most likely will not go away.
They are not at all alien to many of us. There is nothing primordially patriarchal about the desire to have a family, to love and live comfortably.
The problem is not so much about values and roles as about the context of their application.

If we are really that enlightened, then we can afford to look at our past without condemnation and figure out which facets of it are worth preserving.

Have you had any unpleasant encounters with what you thought were relics of the past? What do you personally consider as traditional values? How do you feel about gender roles and how do you see yours?