The article “New Soviet Woman: The Post WWII Feminine Ideal at Home and Abroad” deals with the magazine Soviet Woman produced by the organization AKSZh. The author states, “First published in November–December 1945, Soviet Woman was an artifact of both wartime internationalism and Cold War competition” (Peri, 622). Although this organization begins in WWII seeking to create communication among the USSR and nations abroad, that narrative changes after the war. Soviet Woman becomes much more a vehicle for propaganda than for conversation about women’s issues in nations around the world. Through the use of letters from women in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany the writers of Soviet Woman compare and contrast the lives of women in capitalists countries to women in the USSR. Furthermore, the AKSZh fosters ideals of what the “Soviet woman” should be, and thus how every woman should be.
Questions;
- How might Soviet Woman be harmful in the fight for gender equality?
- Is there any significance in the fact that Soviet Woman was often too expensive for most Soviet women to buy it?
- How does Oriana Atkinson’s depiction of the women of the USSR complicate Soviet Woman? What is significant about how some American readers react to Atkinson’s article? How does the AKSZh react?
- There is clear sexism written about in American and British magazines as well as letters to the AKSZh. However, are there ways in which Soviet Woman is perpetuating female oppression?
- Is the idea of “having it all” inherently oppressive/
- What is the relationship between “individual empowerment” and allegiance to the USSR?
- Based on Soviet Woman where does a woman’s worth come from? Does their definition of a woman’s worth negate woman’s choice?
To answer 1, 2, and 5:
1. It might be harmful because of the intention to shape more foreigners views in former Allied countries (US, UK, and France). Now, ideally, Communism means equality of race, gender, and sex in economic and social standing. But the fact that this effort began in the later years of Stalin’s time in power immediately casts doubt on such intent, especially since (as far as Soviet leaders go) Stalin was extremely Conservative on many social issues. For example, a big propaganda focus of WWII were Soviet women fighting the Germans as snipers, pilots, and partisans. After the war this focus kind of just fades away and we don’t really hear or see more of it until these magazines start up, making it seem that said propaganda efforts were just wartime efforts to inspire Soviet soldiers, civilians, and workers. The intention to change/shape the views of readers from the outset, in the late 1940s, doesn’t necessarily mean it has no legs to stand on, but it certainly made it easier for the American government and media to dismissively push it (and any attempts at spreading equality) aside. As the text states:
“This article ends in the mid-1950s, when the magazine’s
focus shifted away from a Western readership fostered by the wartime coalition and toward new audiences and potential allies in the developing world.”
In my eyes this shift didn’t have the desired effect because the earlier campaign/goal had already somewhat tainted the ideology of the magazine given the era in which it came about.
2. Yes. I think it speaks to the truth of who the target audience is as well as the moderate hypocrisy of the ideals & policies it preaches.
5. Now this is a tough one. This discussion always seems to make its way around to how much freedom everybody has to do A or B. To me, the idea of “having it all” isn’t in itself oppressive, but the pursuit of that idea and potential success of it most certainly can be. We only need to look at the robber barons of early 1900s America to see that when a few “have it all,” everybody else in society is left to fight over the scraps, and only with great reforms can a socio-economic balance be restored. However, since the end result of “having it all” is pretty oppressive in the environment it creates, (big business preventing smaller challengers from selling their product to compete, media serving the benefit of that business to misinform the public [William Randolph Hearst comes to mind here] etc.) I can certainly sympathize with those who view that idea in and of itself as oppressive in nature. On the flip side, I can also sympathize with those who were in a position where such extensive power was but a wild fantasy and work hard in pursuit of it in the face of overwhelming adversity. This is where the gray area is, and while I do think such success is oppressive, I definitely understand the appeal of the idea.