Equality and Revolution: Women’s Rights in the Russian Empire, 1905–1917

Chapter 6

6 “And Who Will Tend the Geese?” No one, except an antediluvian icthyosaurus, disputes the right of women to independent human existence. —Feminist Maria V. Orlovskaia,  One of the chief tasks of the twentieth century . . . consists of keeping women in the sphere most suited to them—the family and the home. —Minister of Justice Ivan G. Shcheglovitov,  T  from  until the outbreak of World War I became, for Russia’s nascent political movements, largely a time of malaise and decline. After the tsar’s dismissal of the First and Second Dumas, the electoral law of June , , ensured conservative majorities in the Third Duma. The Trudoviks, the staunchest feminist allies, were the largest losers. Their -member delegation in the Second Duma shrank to  in the Third Duma. The conservative Octobrist delegation in the Third Duma gained the most, increasing from  to . Kadet representation declined from  delegates in the Second Duma to  in the Third. Outside the Duma the Kadets experienced the “rapid disintegration of [their] extraparliamentary organizations,” losing three-quarters of their hundred thousand members by October .₁ Among leaders of the center and moderate left parties, there was a growing sense of “frustration and futility,” of “political and social anomie.” Hopes for democratic change drastically diminished as the government shaped a legislature more sympathetic to its policies.² 146 The women’s movement proved no exception to the overall tendency of liberals and the left to react to Prime Minister Peter Stolypin’s counterrevolution with despair and alarm. The shattering of hopes and dreams, as well as the disappointments and recriminations following the  Women’s Congress, deepened the feminists’ general sense of malaise. Disheartened by her failure to win government sanction for a National Council of Russian Women, Anna Filosofova saw time running out for herself and for the Russian women’s movement. On January , , she wrote to Lady Aberdeen, head of the International Council of Women: “When I saw you last,” “my parting words were: ‘Je ne perds pas courage!’ . . . But at present, I feel that the unwholesome political conditions we live in, my illness and approaching old age force me to tell you that ‘j’ai perdu courage!’”³ Was the emergence of a mass feminist movement in  and  the high point of prerevolutionary feminism, with its last gasp the  Women’s Congress?⁴ There is certainly evidence for this interpretation. The hopes for action raised by the approval of Finnish suffrage and the left-liberal majorities in the First and Second Dumas had been dashed. The Equal Rights Union, the largest women’s rights organization, had ceased to exist. The Union’s last public symbol, the journal Soiuz zhenshchin, published its final issue at the end of . The remaining feminist groups—such as the Russian Women’s Society, the League for Women’s Equal Rights, and the Club of the Women’s Progressive Party—were small. The repression has been seen as paralyzing the feminists: “Timidity verging on fear among women resulted in a diminution of organizational activities.”₅ But such an interpretation overlooks the ways in which feminist activists adapted to their changing circumstances, keeping sight of their ultimate goals. While it is true that certain activities, such as public meetings and mass outreach , were curtailed during this period, the feminists were able to shift tactics to small deeds, and still press forward with their agenda. A determined cadre of activists remained largely intact, spearheading continuing efforts to keep women’s rights issues in the public eye. Forced to close ranks, those still involved sharpened their focus and adjusted their strategies. Despite the loss of key supporters in the Duma, they continued to raise societal consciousness about the importance of suffrage and women’s rights overall. By  opposition to women’s rights, while still powerful, was largely the province of the far right wing. And the very nature of the opposition from the right aided the feminists’ cause. Still, personally and politically, navigating the reactionary waters was not easy. Maria Chekhova’s decisions in the face of the changing political climate are illustrative. Despite a supportive spouse, family, and network of activist friends, 147 “AND WHO WILL TEND THE GEESE?” Chekhova could not sustain her work at Soiuz zhenshchin. In the spring of , before the Women’s Congress, Liubov Gurevich was “stunned” to learn about Chekhova’s possible decision. Demonstrating the informal ways in which feminists encouraged each other, Gurevich strenuously sought to convince Chekhova to...