Discourse of Continuity and Change: The Legislative Path to Equality

Discourse of Continuity and Change: The Legislative Path to Equality

Try not to hurt anyone; or step on any toes; Use caution in public; forget the word “I.”

Deputy Krandakova1

Ukraine’s transition from totalitarianism to a market-driven society began in 1991. On August

24th of that year the country was on the cusp of an epiphaneous moment—its successful

declaration of independence. Sitting in our dining room was Pavlo Movchan, a poet with a

history of dissidence in the Soviet Union, and one of a series of house guests from Ukraine. As

we listened in disbelief to this stunning news item on public radio, he suddenly leapt to his feet

and exclaimed excitedly: ” I am an author of that declaration!”

In Ukraine, the transitional process was set in motion a year earlier, with public

demonstrations for liberation from the tyranny of the Soviet regime gaining momentum.

During the first days of September, 1990, my husband and I, with our four daughters, were in

Kyiv, where we witnessed the fulfillment of what had always seemed to us to be an impossible

dream. On the third of September a massive political demonstration moved along

Khreshchatyk, Kyiv’s main thoroughfare. As we watched this amazing spectacle in what was

still Soviet Ukraine, we witnessed wave after wave of right hands being raised, diffidently at

first, then more boldly--until they became a sea of three middle fingers held aloft, signifying

Ukraine’s national symbol—the trident. Soapbox orators dotted Kyiv’s central plaza, soon to

be known as Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), and clusters of people could be

heard agitating for secession at various locations throughout the city center. This astonishing

demonstration set the tone for more changes to come. By 1991, with the Soviet Union

1

imploding, secession was no longer an issue. The USSR had fractured into fifteen pieces, as

republic after republic declared its independence, and Ukraine fell away as a sovereign state.

This chapter is concerned with the ways in which the language of gender and women’s

rights discourses have been incorporated into passage and ratification of new statutes designed

to promote gender parity in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 1991declaration of independence. I

will focus on one aspect of that objective--the interplay between women as victims of

discrimination and violent actions, and the significant rise in policies, legislation and initiatives

employed to ameliorate this situation, together with the introduction of women’s rights.

Despite such well-intentioned efforts, the move forward has been slow, hampered by an inept

criminal justice system, corrupt law enforcement agencies, negative stereotyping and the

government’s unwillingness to implement its own gender-parity legislation. As is the case in

other parts of the world, “gender inequality has proven to be much more intractable than

anticipated … and [the] quality of life [has] worsened.”2 Ukraine “is laden here, as elsewhere,

with its own historical baggage,”3 which is inhibiting meaningful change.

Although comparisons with judicial systems and law enforcement agencies in other

transitional countries would be instructive, the aim of this chapter is confined to examining the

failure of a system to secure women’s rights in a single country—Ukraine. I scrutinize this

process from a participant observation perspective. My findings are supplemented by media

accounts, official government reports, primary evidence posted on the internet, and scholarly

readings related to empowering the powerless in the post-Soviet Ukrainian reality.

International statutes in Ukraine

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, is often described as an international bill of

2

rights for women. It is also judged to be “the most important piece of international legislation

encoding women’s rights, which commits 171 signing governments to respect a range of

principles that have … led to positive reforms in constitutions and civil codes.”4 Soviet

Ukraine became a signatory in 1980, and ratified the Convention the following year. On the

eve of independence a decade later, complying with its obligation as a Convention participant

Ukraine’s government issued one of the required periodic progress reports on the advancement

of gender equity. Instead of recording improvements in the status of women, however, the

report referred to the state of Ukrainian society as one of: “outmoded stereotypes that reflect

the role and purpose of women … still prevalent in society … [where] women are not prepared

to fight in the political arena, and are incapable of standing up for their rights …”5

Early in the 1990s, a handful of forward-looking feminists, together with supporters of

women’s rights who shunned the feminist label, began laying the foundation for equal rights 1?

Notes

? This was Deputy Olena Kondrakova’s advice to women aspiring to a political career.

2 Andrea Cornwall, et al, “Introduction,” Feminisms in development: contradictions,

contestations and challenges London, New York: Zed Books, 2007, 1.

3 Deniz Kandiyoti, “Political fiction meets gender myth: post-conflict reconstruction,

‘democratization’ and women’s rights,” in Feminisms, 2007, 191-200.

4 Maxine Molyneux, “The chimera of success: gender ennui and the changed international

policy environment,” in Feminisms, 235.

5 United Nations Report on the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination

against Women. Ukraine issued the report on 14 June, 1991. 3

initiatives. A series of projects dedicated to raising public awareness of gender inequities were

launched. One of the first was the establishment of a women’s rights center, Zhinochi

Perspektyvy (Women’s Perspectives), in Lviv in 1993.6 In 1995 Olena Suslova founded one of

Ukraine’s earliest NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), Zhinochyi informatsiino

konsultatyvnyi tsenter (The Women’s Information Consultative Center). It gathers information

on gender and feminism, and generates public discourse based upon the accumulated data; the

center has sponsored numerous--a project of the Open World. Practices of Open Society

funded by George Soros--was launched in March of that year with the aim of creating an

environment reflective of European standards of gender equality. These initiatives, in

combination with increasing numbers of special consciousness-raising projects, set the stage

for a series of unprecedented parliamentary hearings on women’s issues. The first of these has

been described as an historic landmark in the country’s quest for women’s rights, although it

might also be viewed as “political theater,” staged by male legislators to publicize

governmental compliance with the terms of the UN Convention.

Two events--a meeting of the Organization for Security in Europe (OSE), held in

Ottawa, Canada on July 4-8, 1995, and a conference in Kyiv titled “Woman and Democracy,”

on July 2-, 1995—deliberated gender issues. The Ukrainian delegate to the OSE meeting,

Deputy Oleksandr Moroz (Chairman of the initial parliamentary hearings), concluded from the

Ottawa proceedings that women’s rights had been secured throughout much of the world. This

prompted his prediction that such obvious success would soon motivate Ukraine to follow suit.

Moroz described this experience as a defining moment in his personal determination to work

for an end to gender discrimination. The purpose of the second meeting was to craft a platform

6 Accessed on 03/03/2009: http://www.stopvaw.org/10August2004.18.html.4

for Ukraine’s delegation to the upcoming Fourth International Conference on Women’s Issues

in Beijing.7 Delegates were instructed to scrutinize the proceedings for ideas on women’s

rights.

Making parliamentary history

On July 12, 1995, the politically oriented Zhinocha Hromada (Women’s Society), Ukraine’s

Cabinet of Ministers, and Ukrainian representatives to the United Nations, sponsored the first

of three parliamentary hearings on women’s issues.8 Participants included members of

Ukraine’s ministries, the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Parliament,

the Russian Duma, and Kyiv’s foreign diplomatic community. Most of the speakers were

Ukrainian activists, members of various NGOs, and government officials.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Moroz mentioned the OSE meeting, and reaffirmed his

commitment to gender equality. His female colleagues in the parliament, he continued glibly,

“are only sixteen in number,9 but they are working zealously for their cause.” The sincerity of

his alleged conviction would have inspired greater confidence were it not for the fact that

earlier Moroz had spearheaded a male parliamentarian opposition to those hearings. His

characterization of gender equality as “equal rights for women as women” also did nothing to

dispel my skepticism at his change of heart, yet those same references to “women as women”

7 September 4-15, 1995.

8 In addition to my notes, taken as an observer, I had access to a draft copy of the proceedings

provided by a participant: Tretia Sesiia Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (Third session of the

Ukrainian Parliament). Bulletin No. 97, 1995.

9 There were, in point of fact, seventeen (4.2 percent), not sixteen, female deputies in the

Ukrainian parliament.5

clearly resonated with the female constituency, as the language of the women’s demands

during the hearings revealed.

The first speaker, Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Commission on Human rights Nina

Karpachova, described the hearings as a positive preliminary step, signifying the government’s

readiness to champion affirmative action on ending discrimination. “A new generation of

women,” she announced, “is prepared to lead this fight.” Judging from the agitated male buzz

that erupted immediately throughout the assembly hall, the prospect of such female leadership

unsettled the male legislators. Its mounting crescendo compelled the chair to admonish the men

for disrupting proceedings. Appeals for a suitable environment where “women can be women”

reverberated countless times during the session, as did demands for protective measures to

eliminate “poverty with a woman’s face,” and the unchecked discrimination against women.

Their Janus-like nature, illuminating special concessions for women on the one hand, and equal

rights on the other, highlighted the paradoxical nature of the women’s crusade for justice

When foreign speakers—Norwegian Ambassador to Ukraine Arvid Nördsledtten and

Suani Hunt, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine—alluded to discrepancies in the status of women

between Ukraine and their own countries, Moroz countered testily: “You have your countries

and we have ours. Ukraine will follow its own path toward eliminating discrimination.”10 As I

sat pondering this exchange, I became acutely aware of another troublesome tendency—the

incessant linkage of women to motherhood, and persistent calls for creating conditions

amenable to the integration of women’s maternal obligations and professional lives.

10 Many still believe that Ukraine needs to develop its own feminist paradigm, rooted in

national traditions.6

Startled out of my musings by an unexpected hush in the chamber, amid highly charged

murmurs of intense expectancy I watched Deputy Serhii Kiashko reach under his seat to

retrieve a floral bouquet. Striding purposefully to the front of the assembly hall, he placed the

offering, described as a token of respect and admiration for his female colleagues, at the base

of the podium. Kiashko’s “homage to women” brought to mind the annual Veteran’s Day ritual

of laying a wreath at the tomb of the “unknown soldier,” the fallen hero who had made the

supreme sacrifice for his country. The deputy’s gesture relegated women to this symbolic

realm, where sacrifice is rewarded with a ceremonial gesture of appreciation. Although

Chairman Moroz expressed his displeasure with Kiashko’s action, he tempered it with: “Even

though women appreciate such chivalry, you have breached parliamentary discipline.” The

finale of this “theater of the absurd” was played out by a beaming female deputy, who

interrupted the session in her turn by performing a familiar domestic task--searching for a vase.

At day’s end, I discussed this episode with several women; each hastened to assure me that she

found such chivalrous acts appealing. In no way did they deem themselves diminished as

women by such pleasant “tokens of esteem.” Indeed, the women insisted, disavowing the

custom would merely testify to their lack of femininity, a quality which defined them as

women. When I pressed for their view of femininity, the best they could offer was: “Why, to

be a woman, of course.” “And what does it mean to be a woman”? I pursued. “To possess

feminine qualities, naturally,” was the response. This spiraling regression underscored my

earlier conviction that many Ukrainian women seem unaware of themselves as social units

whose identity is constructed by the opposite sex, within the male matrices of power, and

manipulated by men for their own purposes. 1

1 7

The demands of most of the female speakers still reflected essentialist convictions; only

occasionally was this unmarked paradigm disregarded. For example, the head of Soiuz

Robochykh Zhinok Ukrainy (Working Women’s Alliance of Ukraine) Nina Pokotylo used her

allotted time to censure male power brokers for violating the UN Convention. Accusing them

of corruption and mismanagement, she charged: “You men who sneer at any woman aspiring

to political office, what have you accomplished? Our society is in crisis. We need to bring

women into the political process.” Thus she highlighted a dilemma which would occupy

legislators and women’s rights advocates in Ukraine for the next decade or more, without

appreciably narrowing the gap between declaration and deed.

Legislating women’s rights

In 1997, the United Nations Development Project (UNDP)—a global development network—

began to implement projects to introduce equal rights and opportunities. Its staff provided

policy support for gender-sensitive legislation, and enhanced official capacity for integrating

gender issues into strategic planning. In 1999 the UN Representative Office, which operated in

Kyiv on the authority of the UN Secretary General, received House status in Ukraine and

began to implement a series of UN-sponsored programs. Larysa Kobelianska, a tireless

advocate for women’s rights, and firm supporter of educational programs designed to increase

awareness of gender injustice, heads the UNDP Equal Opportunities program. Her office is

responsible for pioneering a wide array of creative projects on feminist activism.

In 2000 Ukraine subscribed to the UN–sponsored “16 Days of Activism against Gender

Violence,” running from November 25th to December 10th each year to advance the eradication

of violence against women. That same year Ukraine signed the UN Millennium Declaration,

8

and unveiled a year-long nationwide public information campaign on gender awareness,

“Ukraine 2015. Millennium Development Goals”11 On November 15, 2001 the Ukrainian

Parliament followed this with a law “On the Prevention of Violence in the Family.” It was

preceded by a number of normative acts, including a presidential decree on April 25, 2001

aimed at upgrading the social status of women. A second law, creating a platform for

reviewing acts or threats of domestic violence, came into effect in 2002. On April 26, 2003,

the Cabinet of Ministers issued Decree #616, with the stated objective of strengthening certain

provisions in the foregoing laws. A year later, in collaboration with the Ministry of Family,

Children and Youth, the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a decree establishing cooperation in

efforts to expand gender equality throughout the various governmental institutions.12

During the early years following the dissolution of the Soviet state, domestic violence

was either ignored, or victims were charged with provoking it.13 Ukrainian legislation

11 The eight “Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs), to be achieved by 2015, are drawn

from the UN Millennium Declaration, General Assembly resolution 55/2, signed by 147 heads

of state and government during the Millennium Summit in September 8, 2000. Promoting

gender equality and empowering women is Goal #3.

12 Halyna Fedkovych, Ukrainian National VAW Monitor, “Legislative Trends and New

Developments,” Stop Violence against Women. Accessed on 12/31/ 2008:

htttp ://www.stopvaw./org/printview/Legislative_Trends_and_New_Developments26.html .

13 For a discussion of the way the process worked in Russia see Janet Elise Johnson,

“Contesting Violence, Contesting Gender. Crisis Centers Encountering Local Government in

Barnaul, Russia,” in Living Gender after Communism, edited by Janet Elise Johnson and Jean

C. Robinson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007, 40-62.9

enshrined this injustice in two Articles of the 2001 law. Article 18 on “The Prevention of

Negative Victim Behavior” identified the victim’s “provocative” conduct as the source of

domestic violence. This reinforced an immature externalization of such violence committed by

male assailants, who responded to the charges with: “She provoked me.”14 Article 19

reinforced this bias with a provision which contravened the intent of those warning notices by

blaming the victims for provocative conduct.

Historically, victims of domestic violence have failed to report the crime to police

because of the latter’s failure to respond appropriately.15 Although the phenomenon is

recognized worldwide, in Ukraine it takes on a more sinister aspect. The absence of a viable

law enforcement mechanism encourages police to turn a blind eye to evidence of violence,

which is bad enough. What is even worse is that the police themselves act as criminals.

Officers routinely solicit sexual favors from victims in return for registering their complaints,

and state officials are known to sexually assault women in police, or other form of state

custody. For its part, the social stigma attached to sexual violence, stemming from an internal

culture with a bias against “airing one’s dirty laundry in public,” dissuades such reporting. All

these deterrents, coupled with societal norms prone to condoning the assailants’ actions and

impugning the victim instead, create conditions which overwhelmingly favor the perpetrator.16

14 ? See Eve S. Buzawa and Carl G. Buzawa, Domestic Violence. The Criminal Justice

Response, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003, for a

discussion on this as it applies to the US.

15 For a detailed look inside the criminal justice system outside Ukraine consult Buzawa, 35 ff.

16 Accessed on 03/03/2009 at: http://www.stopvaw.org/Sexual_Assault.html.10

In the interest of protecting victims of violence, on April 22, 2002 the Ministry of

Internal Affairs established a procedure known as Preventive Warning for putting batterers on

preventive record. Soon, however, even this expedient was being used to deny complaints (“he

has been warned”) or to deflect responsibility. In one way or another, in one country or

another, “despite wholesale enactments of new statutes police have failed to change their

conduct.” (Buzawa 71)

Hearings for a second time

To address such abuses, on June 9, 2004, the Ukrainian Parliament held a second set of

hearings, titled “Status of Women in Ukraine: Reality and Perspectives.” On this occasion

Adam Martyniuk, First Deputy Head of Ukraine’s Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), acted as

Chair. He opened the proceedings—attended by media personnel, members of civic

organizations, government office holders and foreign dignitaries of both sexes—with the

bizarre “Greetings to our bewitching guests. Consider yourselves at liberty to say whatever

comes to mind; you may even sing if you wish.” During the entire session he indulged in

debasing remarks about women. Oddly enough, no one reacted to his barbs until, in a dramatic

accusation, one of the final speakers, Tamara Melnyk, reproached him. She was rewarded with

a rousing ovation, and vociferous demands from the participants for an extension of her

allotted time to allow a conclusion of her presentation. Smarting from Melnyk’s criticism, the

Chairman refused to extend it, yet when the next speaker (Deputy Petro Symonenko) exceeded

his five minutes, the microphone was left open for him to continue speaking.17 Only the

women’s chants of “han’ba” (shame) and rhythmic clapping compelled his retreat. As I

strolled with a group of participants along Kyiv streets at the end of the day I witnessed people,

17 Martyniuk and Symonenko are close communist comrades.11

apparently moved by the drama in the assembly hall which they had watched on television,

approaching Melnyk to congratulate her on the performance.

Except for the fact that references to violence against women, the evils of trafficking,

and policies detrimental to men were somewhat more in evidence during this round of

hearings, the general rhetoric differed little from that of 1995. Once again, speaker after

speaker linked women’s mission in life to motherhood, called for an environment in which

“women could be women,” and conditions conducive to the integration of their domestic and

professional duties. Male deputies continued to address women with the customary “beautiful,

charming, and weaker half.” Deputy Leonid Chernovets’ky (Mayor of Kyiv at the time of this

writing), brought this tendency into relief by suggesting that women elect qualified men to

advocate on their behalf. The women countered with demands for increased female political

representation. Subsequently, a landmark law “On Ensuring Equal Rights and Opportunities

for Women and Men” was passed on September 8, 2005, and entered into force on January 1,

2006. For the first time in Ukrainian history a law defined discrimination based on sex, and

provided judicial protection from it.18

Third time around

A third set of hearings, titled “Equal Rights and Opportunities in Ukraine, Realities and

Perspectives,” was convened on November 21, 2006. The sessions, consisting of roughly equal

numbers of male and female participants, were divided into two discrete parts—the first on

violence and the second on equal rights and possibilities, with approximately even numbers of

women and men in attendance. During the lunch break, however, many of the men vanished.

18Accessed on 3/3/2009:

http://www.stopvaw.org/Legislative_Trends_and_New_Developments26.html.12

Ostensibly oblivious to the presence of so many males, Martyniuk (presiding as Chair again)

opened the assembly with another of his legendary non sequiturs: “Today we find ourselves in

the presence of a true matriarchy. One is simply dazzled by your amiable, smiling faces.” 19

The first speaker, Yury Pavlenko, Minister of Family, Youth and Sport, began with a

reference to the “16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence” campaign noted earlier.20

Even though violence against women is declining, he claimed, there is an urgent need for

changes to Ukraine’s Codex as a corrective to administrative violations and inadequacies of

past laws.21 He presented a list of remedies against domestic violence, which included better

sanctions against batterers and maximum penalties for their crimes. He also advocated for

assistance to victims in the form of psychological support, hot lines and crisis centers.

Leonid Hrach, Head of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, National

Minorities and International Relations, continued in a similar vein, but warned that the criminal

19 A reference to Ukraine as a matriarchal society, with a history of alleged female centrality

since prehistoric times, used to convince women that Western-style feminism is redundant. For

a comprehensive treatment see: Marian J. Rubchak, “Christian virgin or pagan goddess:

feminism versus the eternally feminine in Ukraine,” Women in Russia and Ukraine, ed.

Rosalind Marsh. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1996; and “Collective memory as a device for

constructing a new gender myth,” Contemporary Ukraine on the Cultural Map of Europe, eds.

Laryssa Onyshkevych and Maria Rewakowicz. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2009.

20 The “16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence” is an international campaign emanating

from the first Women's Global Leadership Institute sponsored by the Center for Women's

Global Leadership in 1991. Participants chose November 25th to begin its annual observance.

21 See Buzawa, 112-115, for a discussion of statutory changes.13

justice system itself harbors assailants. He also drew attention to the severe underfunding of

support agencies for women, railed against the evils of poverty “with a woman’s face,” and

censured the political underrepresentation of female advocates in their own cause. His response

to the mounting offenses against women centered on pragmatic solutions, such as the essential

social services, but he stopped short of plans for funding them.

Olena Bondarenko, Head of a Parliamentary Sub-committee on Gender Policy, within

the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights and International Relations, echoed the call for

improved legislation. Challenging Pavlenko’s exaggerated claim of declining violence, she

insisted that it had simply been driven underground for lack of effective law enforcement

procedures and correctional facilities. Bondarenko laid the blame squarely on his ministry, but

did concede some progress. If the process is to move forward, she cautioned, additional crisis

shelters, more violence-prevention measures, and closer cooperation among legislators, state

policy-makers, NGOs, activists and concerned citizens are imperative.

In a dramatic departure from most presenters, Bondarenko offered two real-life

illustrations of the consequences of domestic violence. The first was that of a sixteen-year-old

youth: unable any longer to stand by and watch his father savagely beat his mother, the young

man committed patricide. A second example revealed that incessant beatings of a young

woman by her father and brother had caused her to succumb to mental illness; this triggered a

new cycle of violence. She beat her eighteen-month old daughter so savagely that the infant

had to be rushed to a trauma center with severe brain damage and other multiple injuries.

Condemnations of domestic violence continued to dominate the first half of the

proceedings, along with a near consensus that Ukraine’s criminal justice system is ill equipped

to cope with the complexity and pervasiveness of such wrongdoing. Its failure was attributed

14

to a lack of properly trained personnel, virtually non-existent social services, government that

ignores preventive programs, provides no assistance to victims, and includes no provisions in

its budget for funding violence intervention. Some participants cited alcohol as the leading

factor in the commission of violent crimes, a charge frequently repeated in the public sphere.

Inexplicably, this allegation seemed to exasperate the chair. He reacted with scarcely-

controlled irritation, turning to the women with another of his baffling comments: “Esteemed

women! Restrain yourselves, don’t give in to anger. I understand that your emotions might be

heightened by such remarks made from the podium, but I remind you, these hearings are all

about women, not the criminal conduct of violent men.”

The most provocative censure of the systemic breakdown—ranging from lawgivers to

the judiciary, from the criminal justice system to the government—came from Deputy Victor

Taran. He attributed the Ukrainian male’s current predisposition to violence to the historical

Russian custom of men brutalizing their women. By way of example, Taran cited one perverse

manifestation of Russian brutality--homosexual antics parodying women engaged in bizarre

violent acts, performed for the amusement of Stalin and members of his Politburo. This

Russian addiction to violence against women, he argued, has been naturalized in Ukraine.

Taran also disparaged the Ukrainian political system for the immunity it afforded male

deputies. Women receive no such concessions, under any circumstances, Taran argued. He

described this male immunity as nedotorkanist’, a difficult term to translate; its closest English

equivalent is “untouchability.” With his time about to expire, Taran requested a few seconds

more to complete his presentation, but was cut off by yet another of the Chairman’s baffling

statements: “Don’t align yourself with the women, he cautioned, lest you convey the wrong

15

impression. As for women’s ‘untouchability,’ please refrain from such slogans. Think about it,

if women are ‘untouchable,’ who is going to give birth to our children”?

Was this some failed comedian, a person fatally obsessed with gibberish, or a man so

obtuse as to feel no connection to the hearings that he was chairing? One participant became so

incensed by Martyniuk’s demeaning comments about women that she passed a note to the

chairman, reproaching him for reducing the proceedings to a ”female dog and pony show” (to

use an American cliché).22 Without disclosing its contents, but with scarcely concealed

irritation, Martyniuk managed a restrained response: “Esteemed women, you authors of such

angry notes! I too am a participant here, with the same rights as yours. I must ask you not to

politicize these proceedings. This is a parliament, not a marketplace, even though we enjoy

freedom of speech.” In the end, unable to contain his displeasure, the chairman turned his

indignation onto one unregistered speaker who insisted on taking a turn at the podium. He

addressed her with the derogatory “little woman” (zhinochko--a term that infantilizes women),

and when she persisted, he threatened to suspend the hearings. “Because I can do this, you

know,” was his defiant warning.

As petitions for change followed one another in rapid succession, they turned

increasingly strident. Presenters insisted on deletion of the offensive Articles 18 and 19 from

the 2001 law, discussed above. They also urged lifting the fines against perpetrators, insisting

that they only compound domestic misery by depleting the family budget. Tetiana Yezhova,

Minister of Youth, Family and Gender Politics in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the all-

Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers does not have such a ministry) injected sex trafficking into the

deliberations, citing Ukraine as one of the leading suppliers of human flesh to the international

22 She was Oksana Kis’, a prominent ethnologist and feminist scholar.16

sex industry. Her proposed solution lay in the economy; if women are to avoid the temptation

of seeking a livelihood abroad, where they are apt to be coerced into sexual slavery, she

charged, they must be empowered to earn a decent living here. And referring to Ukraine’s

catastrophic demographic imbalance (38 percent male compared to 62 percent female), with

men between the ages of twenty-nine and forty-five four times as likely as women to die, she

noted that men are also victims of bad economic policies, causing them to resort to alcohol or

drugs, or fall prey to debilitating diseases that bring an early death.

Deputy Mykola Tomenko23 carried the earlier discussion of violence against women

into the second half of the proceedings, designated for a dialogue on equal rights and

opportunities. Referring to the negative stereotyping that marks parliamentary plenary sessions,

he inquired: “If this is the way our deputies behave, what can we expect from ordinary

citizens”? He also raised a new question: why had no woman addressed the problem of

alimony, or child support? Men seldom receive custody of their children, and they are

notoriously negligent in paying child support. They can easily negotiate minimum assessments

by declaring a fraction of their income or true financial worth. These same men also know that

even if they avoid making the court-ordered payments, retaliatory action is unlikely, regardless

of what the law stipulates. This tends to expose women to abject poverty.

The hearings experienced an unexpected reversal when the next speaker, Professor of

Pedagogy at Shevchenko National University Ol’ha Matvienko, explained that equality and

23 Coincidentally, the three most outspoken critics of gender injustice, Mykola Tomenko,

Victor Taran and Olena Bondarenko, all belong to the Yulia Tymoshenko political bloc.

Although Tymoshenko rejects the feminist label as a self-descriptor, in her way of life she

conforms to its principles.17

replication are not coterminous, that genuine equality means each sex fulfilling its own distinct

role. Women have no business, Matvienko asserted, aspiring to such noble male qualities as a

strong intellect, an impressive body of knowledge and limitless possibilities. They would do

better to capitalize on their own discrete female roles of “beautiful, loving caretakers.”24

Naturally, women’s lesser intellectual capacities are not altogether attributable to their sex, she

concluded, they are also stymied by the absence of male role models (in many Ukrainian

households) during a girl’s formative years. Without a male to introduce them to rational

thought, females will never develop what potential they possess.

Returning the deliberations to the main issue, Tamara Melnyk began her presentation

with a reference to recent advances in gender equality. Although the expansion of women’s

rights remains largely on paper, she noted, when nothing concrete has been accomplished for

so long, even the smallest gain represents progress. Relatively speaking, however, women are

losing ground; advances in gender parity have not translated to sweeping social progress. In

any civilized country, Melnyk explained, rational gender policy is indexed by a decent standard

of living for all, not some pandering to a Soviet-style technocracy which shamelessly exploits

female labor. Moreover, Ukraine’s catastrophic demographic decline is indisputable evidence

of the government’s callous indifference to the welfare of the entire citizenry. Ukraine needs

clearly delineated gender priorities, sustained by a functional criminal justice infrastructure,

and unbiased law enforcement agencies.

An unequivocal condemnation of officialdom brought the session to an end. The final

speaker, A. Komarova, referred to the incessant talk of non-functioning law enforcement

agencies, a corrupt militia, and a biased criminal justice system. She referred to President

24 Janet Elise Johnson and Jean C. Robinson, “Living Gender,” in Living Gender, 1-24. 18

Yushchenko’s address before the International Forum of Ukrainians in May of that year, in

which he too described those same agencies as the most corrupt in the nation. In his judgment

it is not individual perpetrators who are the real criminals, but rather the entire corrupt system,

which unleashes so much violence against the entire nation. If these so-called guardians of

human rights cannot, or will not, reform themselves, Komarova asked, what kind of gender

justice can we speak of?

In 2007 a year-long nationwide public information campaign, “Ukraine 2015,”

mentioned earlier, was launched. The following year, on March 4, representatives from the

parliament and the government, UN experts, and prominent media personnel, met in Kyiv to

discuss the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) on equal opportunities and women’s

rights. One of its achievements during the first phase (2003-2006) was the passage of

normative laws on gender justice. On September 15, 2008 the second phase of the UNDP-led

initiative, “Equal Opportunities and Women’s Rights,” was launched to consolidate earlier

gains. For the first time since Ukraine’s declaration of independence an egalitarian gender

strategy was included in the government’s “Program of Action.” The groundbreaking law of

2005, together with the decree on the “Adoption of a State Program on Ensuring Gender

Equality in Ukrainian Society for 2006-2010,” established a sound formal foundation for the

work ahead. In an interview conducted by Oksana Mykoliuk for the daily newspaper Den’

(The Day), Professor Svitlana Oksamytna, Dean of Sociology at Mohyla National University

in Kyiv, characterized this legislation as “still in its declarative stage; but its passage implies at

least some reflection on the part of lawmakers.”25

25 “Gender from ‘above’ and ‘below,” Interview with Oksana Oksamytna in Den’, on March 6,

2008.19

Changing a stereotype is a fluid and protracted struggle, with setbacks along the way,

as official greetings on International Women’s Day demonstrated so well. A stunning example

of backsliding came in the form of a news item on March 3, 2007, on the Mykolaiv District

Government internet site (in Russian: Nykolaivskaia oblasnaia gosudarstvennaia

administratsiia). It was titled “Woman-worker, woman-mother, wife-guardian of the ancestral

fire.”26 The item equates women with an ancient empowered “hearth mother” (Berehynia), who

has long since been divested of her original meaning, yet survives as a topos to delude

contemporary Ukrainian women into believing in their own empowerment. Conversely, in a

Kyiv newspaper early signs of a rising feminist consciousness appeared. On March 3, 2009 the

following news item ran in the daily Den’:

Last year’s March 8th greeting from the President so struck

women [in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv] that they

determined not to react post factum … instead of “tender

sentiments” [they declared] women would prefer … some

assurance that Ukraine’s Law on ‘Guarantees of Equal

Rights and Possibilities for Women and Men’ would be

implemented. The women also wrote an open letter to all

government personnel requesting a change in their customary

form of address from “my dears, most beloved, bewitching,

tender, caring,” to terms that more accurately reflect their

professional status. 2621 News item accessed on 10/11/2008 at:

http://www.mykolayivoda.gov.ua//ru/news/detail/4105.html.20

Déjà-vu versus change

Some two years after the third hearings, on October 15, 2008, I arrived in Kyiv to participate in

an array of events on women’s rights. My first stop was a “Forum. Stop Violence” meeting. It

was held in Kyiv on October 16-17. Recalling Minister Pavlenko’s 2006 claim of progress on

gender issues, which included crisis centers, I was dismayed to learn that the only such center

in Kyiv was scheduled for closing due to insufficient funding, and that two regional centers

had already been shuttered. Even at best such shelters offer thirty days of refuge for women

thirty-five and younger, with the result that many victims return to their abusive situations for

want of a better alternative. Still, one can argue, although limited they are better than nothing.

Notwithstanding amendments to the law of 2001,27 the entire legal system continues to favor

male perpetrators of crimes. Current militia responses to calls reporting domestic violence

hover around eighty-five percent, but very few men are prosecuted, and fewer still are

punished.28

The Forum proceedings brought to mind the parliamentary hearings--inspirational

rhetoric on the urgency of reform--the necessity for more effective legislation, the pressing

need to establish social services for victims of violence, the advisability of intervention—but

still no reference to a concrete plan for implementing legislation, or funding desperately-

needed services. Three of the foreign speakers, Francis M. O’Donnell and Jeremy Hartley,

representatives of the UN in Ukraine, and William Taylor, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine,

contributed Western ideas of a kind that would help raise the general awareness of gender

injustice. Foreign speakers had also advanced such ideas during the parliamentary hearings. 27 Articles 18 and 19 put the onus for violence on the victims.

28 Forum, October 16, 2008.21

Later, participants congregated in clusters during coffee breaks, or sat together in small

groups around luncheon tables, for informal dialogue. They discussed equal rights, and

proposed practical solutions for eliminating gender injustice, yet I sensed that some still had

failed to avoid the trap of essentialism, not unlike the women at the hearings who so ardently

defended those chivalrous male acts that “defined them as women.” I left with a vague feeling

that as much as the desired changes might continue to inspire stirring rhetoric, real hope for

sweeping social progress would persist in eluding even the most committed activists for some

time to come.

Instead of remaining for the second day of the forum, four of us travelled to the city of

Vinnytsia for a two-day conference titled: “Perspectives for Developing Gender Education as

the Realization of Democratic Changes in Ukrainian Society.” It was sponsored by the UN

Development Program for Ukraine, The Swedish Agency for International Development

(SIDA), The Vinnytsia State Administration, The Vinnytsia Administration of Family and

Youth Affairs, The Vinnytsia Gender Education Center, and Vinnytsia’s National Technical

University. Some fifty or sixty gender scholars, educators, and members of gender centers

from around the country came together on October 17-18 to share their personal experiences in

gender education, and to evaluate its current state in Ukraine. They pointed to the fact that

Western critical theories and feminist methodologies have been incorporated into their

programs, talked about publishing projects (completed and contemplated), and suggested

strategies for mainstreaming women’s scholarship and stimulating further research.29 A

questionnaire sought answers to queries on gender such as: What sorts of problems does it

present in education? Has this approach produced any practical results? What can be done to

29 Native traditions found no place in their gender ideology.22

address popular concerns? And finally, my numerous conversations with participants, during

several coffee breaks and a reception following the first day of proceedings, revealed what to

me was their unexpected familiarity with Western feminist ideas, and the fact that they tended

to think in terms of global feminism. I also learned more about the breadth of their outreach

efforts in gender education. Then it was back to Kyiv, a roughly three-hour journey. The four

of us passed the time in a lively debate on the merits of the conference, the successes of its

participants, and our future plans.

The succeeding event was an eight-hour seminar at Kyiv’s Court of Appeals on

October 21st. It was designed for young “jurists”—graduates with legal degrees who work in

the Appellate Court. These are future judges in training, who describe their professional

activities as conducting research on upcoming cases and preparing briefs for presiding judges.

Some sixty young jurists, divided into two groups, assembled in matching morning and

afternoon sessions to hear female judges from the Appellate Court, legal scholars, gender

activists and a psychologist speak on gender politics, equal rights, and gender-sensitivity in

interpreting the law. The presentations were followed by a gender awareness exercise, in which

real-life scenarios were used to test sensitivity to the scale of discrimination against women.

Unlike the older generation of participants in the parliamentary hearings, with their different

life experiences, the seminar revealed a new kind of Ukrainian citizen in the making. I

witnessed the phenomenon of young people, unencumbered by traditional beliefs and

prejudices, at ease with Western views of a just society, seeking to integrate their ideas on

equal rights into Ukraine’s discursive landscape.

The next day, October 22d, I was privileged to meet with a small group of pioneering

feminists. They consisted of journalists, directors of gender programs and feminist scholars,

23

most of whom had spent time abroad as recipients of study/research fellowships or grants of

one kind or another. We gathered for an informal chat session at the home of my hostess

Tamara Melnyk to assess the country’s progress in implementing the equal rights and

opportunities that animated the parliamentary and Forum dialogues, and to exchange views on

feminist scholarship. This conversation, along with the Vinnytsia conference and Appellate

Court seminar, reinforced my impression of the country’s urbanizing culture beginning to

thrust the rustic Berehynia myth into the shadows. I realized that she was still “out there,”

together with other remnants of Ukraine’s folk culture,30 and was not likely to fade away soon.

Still, it was obvious that new values were beginning to replace traditional thinking on female

identity construction, and these young people were bringing a more innovative view of the

world to their society.

Events such as the parliamentary hearings and the Forum, with their lofty rhetoric,

admirable goals, stated determination to lift the status of women, and justified complaints

against the slow pace of change, were instrumental in generating some modest gains. An

appreciation of the need for equal rights and opportunities continues to intensify, as the special

projects and incentives discussed above attest. Just as the demands for gender justice have

testified, that critical first step, legislation, still awaits its implementation. In the words of

Hilary Standing (in a discussion of gender mainstreaming): “There has been an almost

mechanical belief in the power of intention to determine the outcome of policy

implementation.”31 In Ukraine, the “power of intention” enshrined in progressive legislation

has not yet determined a successful social alteration. There is little doubt that effective

30 The current proliferation of neo-pagan religions in Ukraine, and rising numbers of believers,

testify to tradition’s still viable role in Ukraine’s cultural evolution. 24

legislation is essential, but it takes more than statements on statutes to achieve a transformative

result.

Reflecting on the future

Since the implosion of the Soviet empire, the positive policy changes, and scholarship on

Ukrainian gender relations, represent upward momentum, but the larger environment is still

pointing in the opposite direction. The continuing upward momentum calls for radical shifts in

social relations. It is imperative for traditional discursive practices to interchange with the

modern world. If it is to have an impact, gender discourse must reach the general population; it

cannot simply be confined to the intellectual elite and political players. Gender-friendly

legislation needs meaningful outcomes. A responsive criminal justice system is imperative.

Corrupt institutions want reforming. And negative stereotyping must be reversed. In sum—

good government requires the political will to see gender-friendly legislation put into action.

A new social movement effects change with difficulty, as it works its way through the

people’s resistance to new cultural beliefs.32 The decades ahead will present even greater

challenges to building gender justice. Overcoming them will call for cooperation from all

sectors of society. As they take stock of the progress over the past eighteen years, the

pioneering advocates of women’s rights will find that they must now take their efforts to a

higher level if the larger environment is to begin reversing its direction.

31 Hilary Standing, “Gender, myth and fable: the perils of mainstreaming in sector

bureaucracies,” in Feminisms, 107.

32 ? R. Emerson Dobash and Russell P, Dobash, Women, Violence and Social Change. London

and New York: Routledge, 1992, provides a thorough discussion.25