Pussy Riot and sexism

The Pussy Riot action, the reaction of society, and the trial became the basis for many fruitful discussions of the political situation in the country, the position of the Russian Orthodox Church and other religions in society, and the concept of art. Also, a lot of words have been said about the judicial system and criminal law. It was separately studied whether the group can consider themselves musicians or only action artists. Against this background, it is constantly lost that the group calls itself feminist, that feminism was the main theme of their work. The central position of feminism in the group's views is proven by the lyrics of all their songs, all explanatory texts, all interviews. Even in letters from prison, the participants continue to write about the problems of gender inequality, sexism and homophobia. But it’s not customary to talk about this; rare material on the topic is Anna Zobnina’s interview on Snob. It seems that many considered Pussy Riot's feminism to be nothing more than a flashy attribute along with dresses and tights.

It has already become common place in discussions to say that the action in the KhHS is interesting not in itself, but in the context of the effect that it caused. It became a catalyst for political and social conflicts, showing the obscurantism, lawlessness, and repression existing in society. In the same way, it clearly shows the sexist vices of modern Russian society.

The language and words used in publications and when discussing group members give away the first superficial reactions. One of the common words used to name the defendants is the girls from Pussy Riot. A seemingly benevolent word that is widely used by advocates and sympathizers. In essence, this is equating adults with children, which belittles the meaningfulness of their actions and the value of their statements. This is confirmed by the fact that the epithet is often expanded to “fool girl” or simply “fool”. Such condescension of the older and smarter towards the younger and stupid is caused precisely by the gender of the defendants. In recent years, many different artistic and political actions have been carried out, including controversial and odious ones, but young men in this context are not called fool boys.

Those who are hostile towards the group have even worse vocabulary. The participants are called, at best, disparagingly, maids or wenches. But outright rudeness like whores and whores is also common. That is, women who appeared in the information field due to an artistic action are assessed from the point of view of the speaker’s approval of their hypothetical sexual behavior. In itself, such close attention, discussion and condemnation is characteristic of women. Society imposes normative sexual behavior and considers itself to have the right to control women. This is especially noticeable in discussions of Nadya Tolokonnikova’s behavior. People who have nothing to do with Nadya and her life reproach her for participating in the “Fuck for the bear’s heir” campaign when she was nine months pregnant. Since the rest of the participants in the action are not attacked, it is obvious that the complaints are specifically about the sex life of a pregnant woman, which the speaker considers wrong. Most of these claims are made by men, postulating the right to control the morality and physiology of women.

The same derogatory attitude towards the group members is observed when discussing possible punishment. There are polar points of view about the complete innocence of the defendants and the need for a strict punishment of 7 years in prison under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Between these two opinions, there are many “original” proposals that the participants in the punk prayer service should be flogged, spanked, and forced to wash the floors in the temple. The theme is being discussed in every possible way that it is necessary to act as with children who have misbehaved (although you will not envy the children who were dealt with in such a way for their pranks). Those who say this do not think of applying the same extralegal measures to their own person. The offenses of some Nemtsov, for which he spent time in menturies and temporary detention facilities, were much less intellectual and socially significant than the action in the KhHS. However, it is unlikely that he considers reasoning in the spirit of “I would spank this Nemtsov for an unauthorized rally and let him go!”

Even after recognizing the resonance of the action and the accuracy of its approach to a sensitive topic, many publicists and discussion participants devalue the group’s activities, talking about the “accidentality” of the effect produced. The importance of the authorship of the action, preparation, and comprehension is denied - everything is accidental. It is ignored that the accompanying texts in the LJ group contain an analysis of the problems that ultimately caused such a resonance of the action. Those who still admit the existence of a plan and idea begin to deny the authorship of Nadya, Katya and Masha. Many people assume that there is someone behind the group, that someone organized them, or that someone paid them. At the same time, men are always assumed to be secret organizers - from Verzilov to Berezovsky, including Putin and Gundyaev. Many simply do not consider the idea that several young women were able to analyze the situation in the country and speak about it in an artistic form! Even in the comments to the last word of the defendants there are phrases like “Who wrote their speech?”

The process, although horribly flawed, still gave the group the opportunity to have some say. During all the days in court, Nadya, Katya and Masha made several big speeches during motions, in debates and in the last word. These speeches, especially the last word of each of the defendants, had a strong influence on many and forced them to reconsider their opinion about the members of the group. Many, only because of these last speeches, noticed the good education of all three women, the clarity of expression of thought, intelligence, and taste. Some honestly admitted that they were wrong in their initial judgments. Although an attentive reader and viewer could understand the considerable cultural baggage of the participants from the group’s texts and answers in interviews. This attitude towards women is also typical in other areas: often a woman (especially a young one) is by default assumed to have a low level of intelligence and poor education; the opposite has to be proven, overcoming the existing negative opinion.

Some of the phenomena noted above were more evident in the judgments of men. But the action also demonstrated the level of misogyny among women in Russia. When Madonna, Bjork and Patti Smith spoke out in support of Pussy Riot, exactly the opposite process took place in Russian show business. The accusation was made by Vaenga, Valeria and Volochkova, whose texts also contained many humiliating words addressed to the defendants. There is a huge amount of direct aggression from women associated with the Russian Orthodox Church, a lot of caustic personal attacks.

When the case was considered in court, in questions to witnesses and in speeches from the prosecution and victims' lawyers, the inequality of women and men was recognized as the norm. One of the important points of the accusation is that Nadya, Katya and Masha, during the punk prayer service, were on the sole and pulpit, where, according to some opinions, church rules prohibit women from being present. During the interrogation of witnesses, the question was asked several times whether women enter the solea and pulpit, whether they have the right to be there. The prosecution insisted that women do not have such a right. In fact, the charge calls for criminal penalties for women for being in an open part of a public place while being women. If there were men at the same point, there would be no such claim against them. This is open discrimination against women, which can be tolerated by voluntary members of a religious organization, but is absolutely unacceptable in a secular court. This inequality not only did not cause condemnation in society, but also gave rise to discussions about whether it is really possible or not for women to be there, in which temples as is customary, and whether, perhaps, it was worth simply not going to the pulpit and soleia, but singing in another part temple. When in other countries and Christian churches women fight and sometimes achieve the right to priestly service, in Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church the question of how many years in prison a woman should be given for crossing the border in the wrong place is being discussed.

The most striking manifestation of how modern Russian society relates to feminism is, of course, a quote from the speech of the victims’ lawyer Pavlova: “They all said that they were feminists and that feminism was acceptable in Orthodoxy. This is not so! Everything unnatural is a mortal sin, the death of the soul manifestations of a person associated with his life! Unfortunately, lawyer Pavlova is far from alone in her ignorant anti-feminist opinion. Society is still up to its ears in myths about the essence and manifestations of feminism. Perhaps the activities of the Pussy Riot group, public outcry and public discussions will help improve the situation.

In conclusion, I want to say that I fully support the action in the KhHS and hope for the speedy release of the group members. But what is described in the article is not a value judgment from a Pussy Riot supporter. This is the reality of Russian society. It exists and requires analysis regardless of the attitude towards the group’s activities. We live in this.