The woman's and rights protection movements: Do we have the same way?

by Ludmila Zavadskaya

The peculiarity of the present moment in the development of the Russian third sector is the lack of any meaty ties between public movements of different kinds. If ecological and rights protection movements get in touch in a way then the women's movement stands apart though it is evident that finding common grounds will do everyone good. But are there such common grounds? Where are they? The head of the Women's Rights Protection Program of the American Lawyers Association ponders over this question.

To understand the core of the deep gap, which one can see between the woman's and rights protection movements, one should turn to the history of their development in Soviet years. The rights protection movement, which protects civil rights and freedoms, appeared and grew stronger as an opposition to the Soviet regime, struggling with it. Restructuring of the Soviet Union when the government began to take slogans of the rights protection movement into consideration can be regarded as its victory. The history of the women's movement is quite different.

In Soviet years before the 90th there was no women's movement as such. Of course, there were some women who supported and advocated ideas of feminism. They advanced their own slogans, had their own values but they were regarded among dissident circles. Feminists were met extremely rarely. They didn't join any underground organizations unlike the rights protection movement. And official women's organizations believed that everything concerning the "woman's question" was all right and sex equality had been achieved. So I underline once again the fact that the women's and rights protection movements are not connected historically. The sources of their coming into being are absolutely different.

Another question is whether there are any common grounds for bringing them nearer and what they are. To my mind the clue to this bringing nearer may be, first of all, struggle with discrimination, because any discrimination - faith, race, nationality, and sex - is a political matter. Few people know and remember that in 1980 the Soviet Union signed the Convention "elimination of all forms of woman's discrimination". The then women's organizations didn't read the document, which was published only in 100 copies. But just in this document the question about political, civil and social rights was brought up. But what is more important they said about the violation of the sex equality principle. Observance of the equality principle is a political question and it would be logical if rights protection organizations take it into consideration. But, unfortunately, they have never made a note of the problem.

The second common ground, where the women's and rights protection organizations can unite, is the problem of women's rights. This question was not always brought up in such a way. The fact is that women are not just half of the mankind but they need specific rights connected with their reproductive function. These rights must also be a part of human rights. That is why when we speak about human rights we mean some universal standards directed not only to men but also to both sexes. So there must be not one standard but two ones in documents concerning human rights, since just only so we can secure gender equality and human rights - both of men and women.

Where is it necessary to introduce these two standards? To my mind only in the social sphere where the maternity question arises. And we can admit the difference in standards only within a very short period. Maternity must have to do with an infancy period, and it mustn't stretch up to the woman's pension. A woman must have these specific rights just before and after the parturient period. Then the parenthood, that is motherhood and fatherhood, and from this moment common standards come into effect - both for women and men. I'd like to emphasize the fact that a woman must have some unique rights within a very short period connected with the child's birth. All other standards must be unified for both sexes if we don't want to make a social invalid of a woman. Taking this stand, I regard the women's earlier retirement as a violation of their rights. Since a pension is lower than a salary so this is a direct evidence of discrimination. And aren't sex and age discriminations a question for rights protection organizations?

I repeat the word "discrimination" because I think it is a key word - it must unite both woman's and rights protection movements. The point is not whose rights are violated - men's or women's ones but that human rights are violated. To give the exact definition of the word "discrimination" we should refer to the article of the first Convention "About elimination of all kinds of woman's discrimination". Discrimination is understood as "any sex difference, exception or restriction, which is directed to weakening or brings to nought women's acknowledgement, use and realization, on the basis of men's and women's equality, of rights and main freedoms in all spheres - social, political, economic, family ones and so on".

Just difference doesn't mean discrimination. Discrimination appears when the difference brings to nought universally accepted standards of human rights. Sex discrimination is more often in the labour sphere when everywhere the right for equal admission to employment and equal employment opportunities are violated. We can also speak about women's discrimination in the sphere of political rights.

Political rights are fundamental basic human rights that allow citizens to asset their other rights. In Russia equal suffrage for men and women was established in the 1918 Constitution and in the Declaration of Rights of Working Exploited People. So for more than 80 years a unified standard has been in effect in the sphere of political rights in our country. But what can we see today? We see that the representation of women in all political bodies is ten times smaller than that of men. So it is appropriate to introduce here an idea of "equal opportunities". Having the constitutional principle of equality, equal rights, established in electoral legislation, women don't have equal opportunities to be represented in any political body. It is very important to remove the stress from equality of rights to equality of opportunities. Men and women in our country have different opportunities. And according to the Constitution they must have equal opportunities.

Where does the difference appear? First of all, in the fact that a woman carries all burden of housework and work connected with maternity. According to sociological polls housework occupies one third of all woman's time. What is free time? This is a opportunity for personality development. That is why feminists say that women must have equal opportunities not only at work but also in the family at home. House duties must be redistributed between men and women. So that the latter have some free time.

But let's return to the question of woman's discrimination in the sphere of political rights. I know many women who would like to change the situation using political methods, but they have no opportunity to come to power. Neither political parties nor official bodies nor oligarchs support them. These are mainly women of mature age, women whose children have already grown up and family and life problems are not so keen for them. So what prevents them from coming to power? First of all, culture and traditions of our society. Whatever they say about equal rights, our society regards a woman, first of all, in the family, as a part of the family. The Russian society is patriarchal in its essence. The image of a woman-mother, a mother-heroine was not created incidentally. In many cases a woman parliamentarian, a woman politician are rejected because of patriarchal ideas of not even the government but the society itself. Why does the number of women in organs of state power constantly decrease though women are highly qualified and ready to be in power? I think that women's rights are violated by the society itself. The society doesn't want to see and is unable to see in a woman the standard that must exist for both sexes. A power figure is a figure dressed in a man's suit. The more influence the big-stick policy and militarization of our consciousness have the more evident the fact is. This is the first reason. The reason that should be stressed is how people come to power in general. People come to power through political institutions of the society, we mean, first of all, political parties. Parties are the channels supplying organs of state power with people. But women have no opportunity to be schooled in party leadership because there are no real parties. Look at the parties in power at the federal level: PDP, "Fatherland", "Unity party" - all of them appeared out of nothing six months before regular elections. And they couldn't give women an opportunity to perfect their political skills. The number of women in political parties is very small - 2%. From where do people appear in party lists, which consist of 98% men? The answer is quite simple - they come from organs of power, 90% of which are men. Thus people come to power without "attending" the school of civil society, and then they form so-called "parties" out of the same organs. Everything is turned inside out! That is why when I am told: "let's follow the recommendations of the inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the UNO and put forward women through party lists," I answer that there are no party system in our country. Formally there is this system but actually it is not formed yet. Until we don't understand that power is a part of the state and a party is a part of the society, until we don't make efforts to form real parties, reflecting real interest of the society, this channel will be ineffective for women to advance to levels of taking decisions and to organs of state power.

But doesn't the vicious reproduction of the government by the government itself violate women's rights and rights of citizens on the whole. Isn't it a problem for rights protection organizations? Can't the struggle for observance of the constitutional principle of equal rights and equal opportunities unite women's and rights protection organizations?

I'd like to call your attention to the idea of "equal opportunities" for each sex. If there is sex discrimination in the society, then it means different opportunities for each sex. We have unified standards of human rights but we can't achieve the observance of sex standards. If the Constitution formulates the equality principle as a standard then this standard must be inseminate into our consciousness, it must be observed. If you try to limit citizens in their suffrage right they will immediately begin to assert it. And mass media will raise a clamour. Or the right for education! Are there any violations in this sphere? Yes, of course there are, but they are an exception, not a rule. Or the presumption of innocence. In general this standard is also observed. There are some departures but in this case we speak about the violation of human rights. And when women's rights are violated (for example, women's political rights are violated because of men's predominance in the government), when the constitutional principle of equality is not observed we pretend that it must be so. Violation of the equality principle must become a problem of big policy and this is a task for rights protection organizations. They need to be persuaded to cooperate with women's organizations.

Women are not helpless today. For last 10 years they have learnt a lot, freed themselves from illusions that a powerful state can help them. In search of the way out of this situation they begin to unite. But as soon as people unite according to the common problem, they stop speaking about their rights and begin to struggle for them. Thus the movement "Women of Russia" united not according to sex but according to sex discrimination.

Of course women's organizations still have to struggle with the illusion of the achieved equality, which has been inculcated for 70 years. And the struggle with the illusion is the most serious kind of struggle. But when the scale of illusion fall from the eyes then one can see the problems in real light and begins his struggle for his rights and equal opportunities.

Written by Yulia Kachalova

Our information ^*

In civil service women take up positions that don't influence any crucial decisions. Women make up 56% civil servants at the federal level, but leading posts are held only by 9%, and higher ones - 1,3%.

In judicial bodies at the federal level in the RF Constitutional Court, the RF Supreme Court, the RF higher court of arbitration 72% of all servants are women but only 14% perform leading functions.

In 1999 there was only 1 woman out of 178 members in the Upper Chamber of the Russian Parliament in the Federation Council, among the deputies of the Lower Chamber of the RF State Duma there were 34 women that makes up only 7,6% of the total number of deputies.

According to the UNO information legislators start seriously working out bills in the interest of children only when there are more than 20% women in the Chamber of Deputies of this or that country, and only when the proportion of women approaches 30% then laws and state programs in the interest of women appear.