This chapter problematises the hegemony of Western feminist knowledge by looking at the history of the transnational women’s organisation, the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF). It is based on the WIDF official publications and archival documents. Looking from the perspective of the WIDF headquarters in East Berlin as a centre of transnational networks and following Lucy Delap’s suggestion to see “feminism” rather as a “conversation,” it becomes visible that rights of women, a central part of the feminist programme, were at the centre of the WIDF’s work. However, the rights that WIDF prioritised did not always coincide with priorities of feminist organisations in the West. The economic rights, rights to live in the independent state, right of living in peace and rights of mothers had visible priority in the documents originating from East Berlin, compared to, for example, rights of freedom from male physical and psychological abuse and rights to sexual expression that were central for mainstream feminism in the West. 

Seeking to understand how the politics of race and whiteness could become so powerful in post-communist Russia, the chapter explores the reproduction of ideas of whiteness under a supposedly raceless Communist state. Dealing with questions of gender and women’s emancipation, it shows how postwar decolonisation and anti-colonial struggle marked a turning point in the visibility of race questions within the USSR. In the early Soviet period, overcoming ‘cultural backwardness’, carried out in the name of a socialist universalism, paid little attention to its privileging of white European norms in women’s appearance and behaviour. Race would be forced to the fore in the context of global anti-colonial struggles and the Cold War competition with China. It was Chinese accusations that the Soviets were white and hence incapable of real solidarity that moved members of the Committee of Soviet Women in the Women’s International Democratic Federation to change its leadership. Previously, the Soviet women’s organisation mainly ignored the whiteness of its members during initial encounters with African and Asian women. Since the late 1960s, it promoted women from Central Asia as leaders to show Soviet commitment to the uplift of women from all parts of the Union. While these representatives played an important role in promoting the rights of women in countries fighting against colonialism, these ‘non-white’ Soviet delegates were expected to ‘speak Bolshevik’. They had to reproduce Soviet values and adhere to Soviet norms of whiteness in order to perform their tasks. The entanglement of race and Soviet civilisation was never fully addressed.

This article is about the Feminist Anti-War Resistance (FAS), a network of activists within and outside Russia united in their support for LGBTQ+ rights and ready to resist the patriarchy and the Russian war on Ukraine. The article explores FAS’s ideas and tactics of activism.

Feministiskt antikrig motstånd (FAM – feministskoe antivoennoe soprotivlenie) var en av de första nätverken som offentligt visade sin protest mot Rysslands anfall av Ukraina februari 24 2022. Nu, när kriget fortsätter mer än ett år, kan man med säkerhet säga att FAM  inte bara fortsätter att vara en av dem mest konsekventa motståndare av kriget, men att den är också en av de mest radikala kritiker av de politiska och kulturella strukturer och värderingar som ligger till grund av ryska expansionismen.

The aim of this chapter is to explore certain similarities and some differences between the Soviet women’s organizations on the one hand and state supported women’s organizations in Russia now on the other. The Soviet propaganda was well known for presenting Soviet women as fully enjoying equal rights with men. Ideas on equality were used to create a positive image of the country abroad, as well as to gain alliances for the Eastern bloc. This chapter also explores the work of the contemporary pro-governmental Women’s Union of Russia (heir of the Committee of Soviet Women) — and the new institution promoted by Russia that was declared to enable international cooperation around women’s issues: the Eurasian Women’s Forum. In this chapter I show that in the context of international sanctions due to the annexation of Crimea, international condemnation of Russian authorities’ attacks on LGBTQ+ rights and women’s NGOs, and in particular, after the beginning of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government once again attempted to use women’s organizations as an important (geo)political instrument.

This article explores maternalism in Russia in the context of the contemporary Russian authoritarian state. In particular, I analyze what implications maternalism has for women, mothers, and families on the one hand and how it is connected to the Russian state's new imperial ambitions on the other. I also explore how maternalism is challenged and employed by those resisting state politics, including militarism. Historically, maternalism was used for the analysis of the development of the welfare state in Europe and beyond and for studying women's activism that contributed to significant changes in the state's welfare politics. Maternalism in European history could be seen as “a progressive heterosexual maternal womanhood”; according to Mary Daly, it could be explained as a recognition of the “existence of a uniquely feminine value system based on care and nurturing” and as the assumption that women are performing “a service to the state by raising citizen-workers”. Gender historians of Latin America showed that speaking from the position of a mother was quite important for claiming both the right to be accepted as an equal citizen and the improvement of maternity care, welfare, and living conditions for mothers and children. Furthermore, maternalism was widely used in protests against state militarism, wars, and military dictatorships, not least as a part of the campaign against the Vietnam War or the crimes of the Argentinian military dictatorship. However, maternalism was also widely used by several totalitarian regimes, including fascism and Stalinism. Maternalism was an important political instrument used by the state socialist discourse in order to show the superiority of the “socialist” welfare system over the “capitalist” one and to make this system appear attractive to women from “developing” countries.

This volume explores how different post-Soviet countries have reinterpreted and diverged from the Soviet gender roles and values. It synthesizes results from multiple empirical studies that attend to increasingly conservative features of political governance in the region, particularly the authoritarian regime in Russia. The authors consider diverse enactments of ideologies, policies and practices of gender equality and women’s rights in crucial areas, such as legislative institutions, media, and social activism. The volume contributes to understanding post-Soviet societal dynamics relevant to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5, which emphasizes gender equality as part of fundamental human rights.

This volume explores the challenges that women face, their positions in changing societies, the negotiation of their roles and their responses to change and ways to achieve women’s empowerment. The regional focus is on countries in the territory of the former Soviet Union. With this volume, we fill a gap in the published knowledge on recent politics, ideology, identity and activism in relation to gender and to women that have been seriously impacted by conservative politics and resurgent nationalism.