It’s not that I am particularly happy to note how easily the promises of the Orange Revolution were squandered, and how bitter and disenfranchised the majority of the Ukrainian electorate is. It brings me no joy to point out that in this country, people must worry about everything from the skyrocketing price of cheese to the stoking of mass hysteria surrounding swine flu, before they worry about which one of their candidates is pro-Western enough.

Still, it does bring me joy to mock Professor Kuzio’s sage advice from on high. I’m sure he can take it in stride. He’s not the one who just had to help bandage his kid brother’s arm because the ice on the streets of the capital is not getting cleaned up, and people are falling left and right, falling on the way to the polls to cast ballots for candidates who rarely deal with the reality of what it means to be an average Ukrainian. The way I see it, people who urge Ukrainian voters to lay aside petty practical concerns and see the big picture are getting off easy.

Here is where Victor Yanukovych comes in. Yanukovich, you might recall, was the reason why 2004’s Orange Revolution happened in the first place. His initial win in that election was declared to be the result of electoral fraud. Undaunted by his reputation as a Kremlin shill, Yanukovych hunkered down in the opposition and set about re-branding himself. And after the pathos and euphoria of the Orange Revolution had passed, after political deadlock seized the country, after President Victor Yuschenko utterly failed to unite Ukraine on most issues, Yanukovych began to seem more and more appealing.

Most outsiders do not quite understand the charm of Victor Yanukovych. He is not particularly eloquent. He has two criminal convictions under his belt. He is, in many ways, just as divisive of a leader as Victor Yuschenko turned out to be. But for a narrow majority of voters, Yanukovych represents a chance at stability. He is solid and calm, the very opposite of flashy. He has pledged to introduce Russian as a second state language, an issue which is seen as crucial by millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who get as fired up about it as the American conservative base does about abortion. For a man of his background, he is often surprisingly mild-mannered. His campaign slogan, “A Ukraine for human beings,” belies a certain uncomfortable truth about standards of living in this country.

"I've lived a complicated life!" Victor Yanukovych on the cover of Korrespondent. Image: Yanukovych.com.ua

“There is no one in charge in this country,” a taxi driver told me bitterly as he attempted to navigate a snow-choked street in the early morning the other day. His sentiment is one that, I believe, was echoed by millions of Ukrainians as they cast their vote. Combine this with low voter turn-out in Western Ukraine, for all intents and purposes the birthplace of the Orange Revolution, and Yanukovych’s projected win makes total sense.

For a symbol of a failed revolution, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was beaten very narrowly just now, has shown remarkable tenacity. “She belongs in the opposition,” a member of Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions recently said on television. “She has that contrarian spirit.” The remark, meant to be dismissive, does highlight an important element of Tymoshenko’s politics: she appears to really hit her stride while in active conflict. Opposition politics are as crucial in Ukraine as they were five years ago, and they will continue to be crucial. When life in the country is not improving, however, in-fighting becomes exhausting. One can hope, though, that as far as her political activity is concerned, Tymoshenko will not simply take her toys and go home.

In the meantime, Ukraine remains as divided as ever. Expectations are low, which is dangerous, because low expectations automatically mean complacency on part of leaders.

Perhaps Serhiy Tihipko, who came in third during the first round of elections and is considered by many to be a breath of fresh air, will start building a decent coalition for a new opposition while everyone is still going on about Tymoshenko’s tiger and Yanukovych’s oligarch allies.

“I voted for Yanukovich. I think there will be less chaos, with him.” She seemed a little doubtful. She also seemed like she didn’t think she had a whole lot of choice. Yanukovich, she felt, she could relate to. “He’s a simple man. That’s not a bad thing.”

Now that the Ukrainian presidential election is going to round two on February 7th, when Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko will be facing off against opposition leader Victor Yanukovich, Western observers are treating the fact that Victor Yuschenko’s presidential candidacy has been eliminated as some sort of news. Well, to be fair, it’s news for the outside world. It’s not news around here, though. For most people who lived through the economic and political turmoil that followed the Orange Revolution, Yuschenko has become a caricature of himself. His long-standing investigation into his own poisoning stopped eliciting sympathy a while ago.

“I voted against everybody,” Yaroslava, a 25-year-old translator living in Kyiv told me. “Because I don’t believe we have actual leaders in the country right now. If nobody can take care of the fallen branches in the street following the latest blizzard, and this is in the capital, what does that tell you about the state of the country?”

Eugene, a 28-year-old software developer, also living in Kyiv, told me about how he had made up his mind to vote for a certain candidate before he set out for the precinct in the morning. The road, however, struck him as so poorly maintained, that by the time he actually got to where he was driving, he felt obligated to cast a protest vote as well.

Victor Yanokovich’s main campaign slogan goes like this: “A Ukraine for human beings.” It may not be especially subtle, but it brings the point home. Ukraine, lately, has not seemed to be particularly hospitable to actual people.

“People shouldn’t give Yanukovich crap for having close ties to the Kremlin,” a friend from Donbass told me yesterday. “Why shouldn’t he have them? Living next to Russia doesn’t count for anything anymore?”

Both Tymoshenko and Yanukovich arouse suspicion in the West, some of it healthy, some of it not so much. Without getting into the interesting details of both candidacies, many people automatically brand the two as suspect due to the fact that the Kremlin is, indeed, not frothing at the mouth with hatred for either one. This is, of course, automatically a bad thing. It’s almost as if nothing short of an armed conflict with the Russian Federation would please certain people, at this point. Of course, the people in question would not stand to lose a whole lot should that, God forbid, actually happen.

Kyiv is often referred to as “the mother of Russian cities,” which is no empty phrase. Despite the devastating effects of both Russian and Soviet imperialism, there are many ties that do, in fact, bind the Russian Federation and Ukraine. To discount them is idiotic, and destroying them would pave the way for more unrest in Europe.

The people who prefer Yulia Tymoshenko, however, see her as both more independent, tougher and, let’s face it, classier than Victor Yanukovich.

Tymoshenko in recent appearance on ICTV. Photo: Tymoshenko.ua

“Just don’t try to tell me I voted for Yulia because she’s good-looking,” another friend of mine, who works as a builder in Zhitomir, said to me over the phone.

“Of course not! That would be sexist!”

“It would be stupid, because look at her track record. Yuschenko fell apart, Tymoshenko charged ahead. I don’t care what anyone thinks, you have to admire her for that, at least. And the white tiger in the campaign posters. I don’t care. It’s genius.”

He’s right. It is genius. Yanukovich may appeal to people with folksiness, but it is Tymoshenko who knows the true meaning of spectacle. While I would shy away from making sweeping pronouncements on Ukrainian culture, I have always believed that one of the things people really know how to do around here is having fun, and Yulia Tymoshenko is incredibly fun. She didn’t fall apart either, it’s true. She has, like the Bob Dylan song, kept on keeping on, blunders and all. People who seriously refer to her as the Ukrainian Sarah Palin have no idea what they’re talking about. Tymoshenko could school Sarah Palin on everything from international relations to media image to money to the art of the save. There is a lesson in the fact that Tymoshenko was not buried in the debris of the failed Orange Revolution.

For now, as I slipped and fell on the ice for the second time yesterday, in an unkempt courtyard smack in the city center, I did catch myself hoping that Tymoshenko’s tenaciousness will translate into actual stability. And do so sooner, rather than later.

Natalia: Here’s a rhetorical question to start us off, IS there feminism in Ukraine?

Maria: That’s not a rhetorical question, that’s a difficult, philosophical question. The most common belief is that feminism is “not needed” in Ukraine, that Ukrainian women have all the rights they need and that we furthermore have a matriarchy. Contrast that, for a moment, with the fact that there less than 8% of members of parliament are female.

Women’s organizations are terrified of the word “feminism.” Right now, Ukraine has seriously begun to tackle the issue of gender equality; there is a sub-commission on it in the government commission on human rights. The media, however, is very careful to differentiate between “gender equality” and “feminism,” because feminists are hellish, castrating creatures, or so everyone thinks.

And why are we so terrified of a single word?

The word “feminism” is a bit like the word “nationalism” here. They are mythologized as destructive and inhumane. The Soviet system equated both feminism and nationalism with the lifestyle of the bourgeoisie. In modern Ukraine, we also spread rumors about how feminism works in, say, the U.S. There is a popular belief that if you come to America, and happen to open a door for a woman, she’ll sue you for everything you’ve got. I’ve been to the U.S., and I know that’s not true, but people enjoy their caricatures.

Can we talk about feminism in the context of nationalism? That’s kind of an alien concept, to me.

It’s a difficult topic for me. I’m a Ukrainian nationalist, but I know that our nationalism is not progressive. One of the many problems with it is the idea that a woman is a kind of keeper of the household and of national identity. In this role, she gets blamed for everything that goes wrong in the country. “Our women are bitches who f*ck foreigners and ruin our gene pool,” does that sound familiar?

Yes.

People want to build a better nation on the backs of women, and that’s not going to work. I call myself a nationalist because I believe in developing and bettering Ukraine, but how can I reconcile that with putting fellow women down?

I see eerie similarities between Ukrainian nationalism and National Socialism. Like the Kinder, Küche, Kirche slogan, I find that it’s similar to the kind of rhetoric that Ukrainian nationalists spew.

We need to get rid of both sexism and xenophobia, but we don’t have critical mass right now.

Speaking of critical mass, what do you think of Yulia Tymoshenko?

Tymoshenko on the campaign trail. Photo: Tymoshenko.UA

I think it’s great that we have a prominent, powerful woman in government, someone who has a real chance of winning the presidency, but I think we can’t talk about Yulia Tymoshenko without mentioning the issue of tokenism. Right now, it’s too easy for people to say, “what are you complaining about? You have Yulia!” That’s beside the fact that every time Yulia makes a mistake, all women collectively are blamed. It really makes me wonder about whether or not quotas for women in government will be useful. Quotas, of course, can result in us having a class of female puppets sitting in parliament, but at the end of the day, I think they will help even out the power imbalance.

Here’s something I’ve been dying to ask a Ukrainian feminist: what do I tell my teenage cousin who says that boys won’t like her if she becomes a feminist? She’s smart, she’s young, she’s fit, she wants to have a social life, and she doesn’t want to be ostracized.

Let me start off by saying that when I was a teenager, I knew I was unattractive. My classmates wore make-up, and were fashionable, and I wasn’t anything like that. However, I started approaching the most attractive boys at all the school dances. They were so surprised, that they usually said “yes.” I ended up having a lot of fun. I developed a sense of confidence, and rejection didn’t hurt me, because I just moved on. Confidence is key. As the result of having it, I was never bereft of male attention.

You should remind your cousin that feminist women don’t dehumanize men. A feminist woman doesn’t need a superhero, and guess what? Most men like that. People who don’t have unrealistic expectations of one another tend to fight less. And if a man is, say, turned off by your cousin’s intelligence, tell her to ask herself if she needs a guy like that in the first place. If a smart woman digs deep enough, the answer is always “no.”

When you mentioned superheroes, it made me think about how sexism hurts men too. I know guys who have to be alpha males in all areas of life, 24/7, and if they don’t, it’s a safe bet their wife or girlfriend will be horribly dissatisfied. I think that really sucks.

I come home to my husband and say, “thank God I have you, thank God we have each other,” because I couldn’t stand it if our relationship was built on that model. I don’t know how anyone could put up with that, male or female.

Women who don’t have someone in their lives are pitied, of course. I think so many women in abusive relationships don’t leave, because men around here are seriously over-valued.

Well, women in more developed nations also have a hard time leaving abusive relationships, because of Stockholm Syndrome. But I think you’re on to something, in regards to how men are over-valued in countries like Ukraine, in Russia, etc. Entire generations of men were wiped out by a series of horrific conflicts, and that sort of thing has consequences on society. It’s almost like a reflex by now.

How do we get rid of the reflex?

I don’t think anything is going to change for as long as girls are taught that their youth and beauty are the best they can offer the world. Also, the demographic crisis in the country plays its part, because people’s knee-jerk response to that is to treat women like baby-making machines. If we curbed the infant mortality rate and the rate at which men die of alcoholism and alcoholism-related illnesses or injuries, our demographic situation would improve. Of course, this solution is more time-consuming and less slapdash than demanding that women just “produce” babies. Once again, it’s about building a better nation on the backs of women, and it’s not going to work.

I find that the cavalier attitude many in society have toward child-bearing and bringing up kids plays a huge part in keeping women down.

There’s a popular saying, “if God gives you children, God will give you the means to support those children.” I hate it. I hate it especially because it’s usually uttered by people who won’t lift a finger to help, say, a single mother in trouble. A child is a responsibility, and it’s often shared unequally. I wish people would stop saying that, especially now that there is a financial crisis in this country. All it does is shame people who have nothing to be ashamed about.

Also, it’s somehow considered “natural” for men to abandon their families. I mean, it’s considered “unfortunate” as well, but it’s something that doesn’t really shock anyone, does it?

You also have to understand that there are no mechanisms that would allow parents to share custody. Not to mention the fact that there are many situations in which it would be better for the kids to be left with the father, but that option isn’t even on the table, because the mother will then be pecked to death. She’ll be pecked by her own family, by her neighbours, by her colleagues. She’ll be torn apart, because she’s “neglecting her duty,” even if it’s a situation in which everyone would benefit if the kids stayed with the dad.

Because I’d like to end this on a cheerful note, I want to talk about rich husbands. That’s all I ever hear about in Ukraine, these days. “Natalia, Natalia, get yourself a rich husband, quick. Before they all get snapped up.”

[laughs] Remember, if you marry a man for his money and property, there’s no guarantee that it won’t be thrown back in your face later!

In Ukraine, theater is regarded as genteel and boring – something for dainty virgins to enjoy when they’re not crocheting. By contrast, Troitsky is not afraid to be jarring both visually and emotionally. The work he does as director and organizer is organic to the chaos at hand in Ukraine, and local and international audiences have been responding strongly to everything from his weird, mystical takes on Shakespeare to his own biting commentary on modern times.

After the close of this year’s Gogolfest, I had an opportunity to speak to Troitsky about Ukraine, modern theater, politics, travel visas, people who drink beer at 9 a.m., and what potentially awaits us after the 2010 presidential elections.

Natalia: Now that the festival is over, can you comment on how it went this year?

Vlad: That should really be up to others. Personally speaking, I think it went well. I think the public’s reaction was good. We’re trying to organize an entirely new mainstream, something free of flag-waving and knee-jerk patriotism, and I think we’re succeeding. Attending the festival, people have a chance to not feel provincial next to Russia, next to other European countries.

Natalia: You’ve said before that the reason why the festival is named after Nikolai Gogol has to do with the fact that Gogol is the one Ukrainian cultural figure who is very much European. What do you mean by that?

Vlad: Gogol is part of a great humanist tradition in Europe. He was a rare individual. Even today, you look at our modern immigrants, people who go abroad and supposedly engage with the rest of the world, and you see how they viciously criticize the place they left and the place they moved to. Gogol had none of this typical small-mindedness. That appeals to me.

Natalia: Speaking of small-mindedness, you’ve had a lot of harsh words for the way that Ukrainian art and culture are maintained, or not maintained. Do you think things might change after the 2010 elections?

Vlad: I don’t know. The problem with our country is that there is no strategic thinking where the arts are concerned. Government is like a revolving door, people don’t even have time to make sustained efforts, because they come and they go. In that sense, this is why Gogolfest is such a feat – it’s so hard to secure any kind of meaningful support for it. But it keeps happening.

Natalia: Your rhetoric around Gogolfest is interesting. You’ve spoken of the festival as a kind of ‘cultural mall’ and a distinct ‘brand.’ Looking at our cultural landscape, I wonder if established people…

Vlad: Established? There’s really no such thing as “established” figures around here. Everyone is marginalized, with the possible exception of [actor] Bogdan Stupka.

Gogol watching over Gogolfest

Natalia: I guess what I’m trying to ask is this: among our cultural gatekeepers, do you get criticized for using business-oriented language?

Vlad: You get criticized if you do anything. If you do nothing, then great, everyone leaves you alone. But it’s not that I necessarily like translating culture into business. Above everything else, the festival is an opportunity for people to feel like human beings. That’s the main point of it.

Natalia: I want to return to what you just said about marginalization. I remember you once commented that in richer nations, wealthier people can cut themselves off from the marginalized, they don’t have to deal with them every day, which isn’t really the case in Ukraine. Can you expand more on that?

Vlad: What does the word “marginalized” mean, anyway? Look at it in context. In Ukraine, the boys and girls who are getting drunk on the sidewalk in the morning, they’re not the marginalized ones. To be marginalized is to not be needed. The people clutching their beers at 9 a.m., they’re needed. In this country, it’s kids who, for example, attend music school who don’t matter to anyone. They’re the real marginalized group. Anyone with an iota of talent dreams of leaving, because nobody cares about them and their work.

And the top of the social hierarchy in Ukraine doesn’t deal with reality either. They don’t have to. There are a lot of rich people in Ukraine these days, the leaders of society, and you just have to wonder if they’re intelligent at all. That’s the real question.

Natalia: I’ve noticed you’ve had a lot of warm words to say about England and English society.

Vlad: I have a lot of warm words to say about Germany, about France. I like England a lot, though, because it’s able to remain so distinctly English.

Natalia: Plenty of English people would not agree with you on that. Everyone seems to talk about how England today is irrevocably changed.

Vlad: Well, that’s the way of all cultures, isn’t? I still think that English culture in particular is holding out as something very distinct, even as people of different backgrounds join it.

You know, I’m a tourist in London. I don’t know if I could get used to living in such a megapolis. Kyiv, by comparison, is something else entirely. Speaking of travel, did you know that the Dakh company and I were supposed to go to the U.S. recently for a private performance, and weren’t able to get a visa?

"In every word, there is an abyss of space, every word is limitless." - Gogol quote on festival banner.

Natalia: That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

Vlad: It’s the reality of how Ukraine is viewed by U.S. officials. We’re on a certain tier at the moment.

Natalia: That’s infuriating.

Vlad: It is what it is.

Natalia: As far as differences between Ukraine and Western nations go, you’ve said that Western theater as very much its own thing, something that contrasts sharply with local theater. Can we talk about that?

Vlad: Well, which Western theater are you talking about? Are we discussing Edinburgh? Avignon? I think the main difference is, Western governments care about high art and know that it must be protected. High art is elevated to prestigious status. Look at all the people clamoring to make it to the Fringe, or to get good tickets to a famous opera house. We don’t have that in Ukraine.

Consider the fact that not a single presidential candidate even attended Gogolfest. What does that tell you? I don’t know if they’re afraid, or if it’s something else, but it sends a particular message.

Natalia: That’s such a contrast with Russia, isn’t it?

Vlad: Russians are raised to love their high art and to believe in it. It is its own unique phenomenon. Most of it is does not engage world culture, with notable exceptions, such as the work of Andrei Zvyagintsev, Alexander Sokurov, Alexei German and others.

Natalia: Not Nikita Mikhalkov?

Vlad: I think Mikhalkov has lost the plot.

Natalia: Tell me about all of those big Hollywood stars you admire.

Vlad: I admire hard-working people: Leonardo Dicaprio, Nicole Kidman, Brad Pitt. They have a work ethic that’s largely missing in Ukraine today.

Natalia: And why do you think that is?

Vlad: Look at it in context of breaking away from great Russian theater and standing on our own. We are independent, great, but we’re not cultivating ourselves. When we do cultivate ourselves, it’s mostly done on a very local level, as opposed to national level. Kids who study theater and acting have no myths to propel them forward. Their highest ambition? Get on some middling TV show. Right now, this is the highest career peak they can dream of.

Natalia: Seems like that’s changing already. Though there’s always that temptation to be sad after a festival, no? When everything has been taken apart, and you have to wait until next year?

Vlad: It’s part of the art. After people witness the ending, the dismantling, the sense of sadness that accompanies it becomes another experience to take away with them.

Sitting down with this fierce ideological opponent (I should get this out of the way quickly – I am diametrically opposed to Kukharchuk’s views), I was struck by what an enormous, uphill battle sexual minorities face in Ukraine today.

Natalia: So tell me about your organization – you’re the founder, right?

Ruslan: Yes. It started in 2003. It wasn’t really an organization then. I found out that a lesbian parade was going to be organized in downtown Kiev, and sprung into action. We only had 10 days to act, but we made them count. The local authorities eventually, as they put it, “discouraged” the parade from taking place. On the day of the parade, we passed out anti-gay fliers. I guess the lesbians also had some kind of tent. From then on, it became a tradition for us, protesting homosexual propaganda in the streets of Kyiv. We have what we call “Family Carnivals,” we just had one this past Saturday. In 2006, we gained legal status. In 2009, we nationalized.

Natalia: The word “God” crops up quite a bit in your promotional materials. Are you a religious organization?

Ruslan: We’re a social organization. Of course, all of the world’s religions protest homosexuality, but our arguments go further than that. We want to reach people who are not necessarily religious, and we want to reach them with this message: deviance is bad for national security.

Natalia: National security?

Ruslan: Of course. First of all, the homosexual lifestyle spreads AIDS. Second of all, it contributes to the demographic crisis in Europe. Third of all, it undermines the family, and families, traditional families, form the basis of any nation. Without family, a nation ceases to exist.

Natalia: I haven’t noticed gay-friendly nations ceasing to exist yet, but I have noticed in one of your brochures the following statement: “Homosexuality interferes with personal development.” Would you like to explain what you mean by that?

Ruslan: There is this prevailing myth in our society – “gays are talented,” but homosexuals are more depressed and suicidal, actually. They can’t reach their full potential.

Natalia: Well, wouldn’t that be because…

Ruslan: Because they’re oppressed? No. That’s the argument many people use, but it’s wrong. These people just have a hard time living with themselves. Look, I believe that sexual deviance is a mental illness. There are many factors responsible. It’s a condition that people have. This is why our organization is 100% opposed to violence. These people need help, they don’t need to be beaten up.

Natalia: Speaking of violence, you don’t suppose that your rhetoric actually fuels it?

Ruslan: No. Violence is real, but I think it’s mostly caused by individual circumstances. It’s very much a politicized issue, so it can be hard to tell. That’s not true in every case, I understand that. There was a case in Israel recently, a gunman attacking a gay center. Obviously, we know what his motivation was. Though I don’t think propaganda of their lifestyle helps gays stay safe.

Natalia: And what do you think about gay honour killings? When families kill their kids if they are outed?

Ruslan: I understand that’s a problem in the Muslim world. I’m not an imam, so I can’t really comment. But our organization believes that homosexuality is caused by many factors. So if your child is gay, your question should be – “What have I done to contribute to this situation?” It shouldn’t be – “What’s the best way to kill this child?”

Natalia: You’ve spoken about challenging so-called “gay propaganda” in court. What Ukrainian laws actually support your position?

Ruslan: Well, our family codex is quite good, actually. It defines marriage as something between a man and wife. Of course, that can change, and we don’t want to let that happen. It’s like – you should know about this – when the American Psychological Association decided that it wasn’t going to list homosexuality as a mental condition anymore. Why did they decide that? What’s next? “Schizophrenia has become so widespread, we can’t call it a bad thing anymore either?”

Natalia: And are you also personally opposed to other non-traditional lifestyles? It’s a big world out there, many freaky people, doing freaky things.

Ruslan: I’m an Evangelical Christian, but I’m not necessarily against people who go against the grain. I don’t care if someone is emo, for example. I hate it when people like me are painted as total conformists. I look at emo boys, I say, “they’ll grow out of it.”

Of course, I oppose adultery and lust and sin in general. I’m not telling people what to do in their bedrooms, mind you. I don’t even care what gays do in their bedrooms. People do whatever they need to do. I might think it’s a sin, but that’s not the issue. The issue is when they impose a dictatorship of their ideas.

Natalia: Dictatorship?

Ruslan: Read the news. Everywhere you look in the West, somebody’s getting disgraced because they said something against gays. Well, excuse me, it shouldn’t work like that. I should be able to say whatever I want. It’s how democracy should work.

Natalia: The counter-argument to that, of course, is the entire idea of minority rights and how society is fundamentally stacked against certain people from the outset, resulting in inequalities that must be corrected somehow.

Ruslan: Rights? Look, there is such a thing as natural rights. For example, let’s say I’m black. Someone discriminates against me, that is not OK. But what does a deviant sexual lifestyle have to do with natural rights? Nothing. And I should remind you that we’re on a slippery slope here. Two hundred years ago, the very idea of a lesbian parade in this city would have been unthinkable. Now suddenly people have this idea? So what will happen tomorrow? A parade of zoophiles?

Natalia: Two hundred years ago, most people also thought that slavery was pretty great.

Ruslan: Well, I’m not saying that history is singular. That’s not what I mean. Society doesn’t move in one direction, it’s more complicated than that. I just look at the statistics to determine what is going on, what’s good and what’s bad. Did you know that gays, proportionately, have a higher rate of pedophilia among their ranks?

Natalia: Is that statistic quoted from an independent source?

Ruslan: We take all of our statistics from this Russian website. They translate a lot of studies, which are independent. I’m wouldn’t play fast and loose with numbers anyway, that will only be used against our organization later.

"Homosexuality = AIDS" March in downtown Kyiv. Photo: Vladimir Antonov

Natalia: So you and I have been sitting here and discussing so-called deviance, and I’m curious, what do you make of straight men who get turned on by the sight of two attractive women kissing?

Ruslan: [laughs] Attractive lesbians are a myth. Men have been brainwashed by porn and glossy magazine covers into believing otherwise. But it’s not real.

Natalia: All of these men. So turned on by ladies making out. Where do you think that impulse comes from?

Ruslan: I’m telling you, it’s from brainwashing.

Natalia: So it’s a totally modern phenomenon, in your understanding.

Ruslan: Totally.

Natalia: Are you against “sexual deviance” when it crops up in, say, a relationship between a married, heterosexual couple? I mean, you have this equation in your brochure: a man plus and woman equals a family with kids, but not all sex out there is procreative.

Ruslan: Honestly, I think married couples should do whatever they want, as long as both parties consent. There is this misconception, as if the church actually can advise people on positions during sex or something like that. Well, it can’t. I guess we keep coming back to this point: people are going to do whatever they want, behind closed doors. It’s when you begin to advertise it that the trouble starts.

Natalia: I’d like to ask you about the upcoming Ukrainian election. Any favourite candidates?

Ruslan: I’m a public person, the face of our organization, so I’m not naming names. I will tell you this, though, the things that divide Ukraine right now? They need to be put to rest. There are five issues: NATO, EU, relations with Russia and Russian as a second state language, competing religious confessions, and the fight over the legacy of WWII, and we need a moratorium on all of them. We can’t fix up the country if the country is torn apart.

Natalia: You know, it’s interesting that you should say that. Have you ever heard the English expression – “let’s agree to disagree”? Perhaps your organization might benefit from it.

Ruslan: [laughs] It’s a good expression, I must remember it for later use.

I recently sat down with Gutsol in a cafe by Kyiv’s Independence Square, to talk about everything from her organization’s tactics of harassing sex tourists to the endless debate about women and housework.

Natalia: Before we get into the meat of things, I have to ask – do you ever get scared? You must piss off plenty of people.

Anna: Everyone’s been asking me this question lately. At this point, I’m wondering: should I be scared? But the thing is, I refuse to. I believe in what I’m doing. And there are plenty of people in Ukraine who are sympathetic to our cause.

Natalia: I’ve read a lot about FEMEN recently, but I’d like to hear you describe your organization firsthand.

Anna: FEMEN is based on the idea that girls need to be active participants in society. And by “active,” I don’t just mean “active enough to land themselves husbands.” We want more women to develop a social consciousness. We’re also against the idea of sex tourism and the sex industry in general in Ukraine. And we want to package our message in a way that’s going to be appealing to young Ukrainian women. Look around you, nobody wants to be a Girl Scout here.

Natalia: Your image is definitely not Girl Scout-esque. Do you get criticized for your provocative social protests?

Photo courtesy of FEMEN

Anna: Of course. People sneer at us all the time: “You’re against the sex industry, but you are all dressing like sex-workers.” But Ukrainian sex-workers by and large don’t own their own bodies. That’s not how it works with us. When one of our girls went topless on Independence Square, she was doing it as a radical act. And it gets people talking. Our sexy image causes debate. You need to have debate if you are ever to move forward. So many activists have no idea how to engage the media and the public. They’re dour, uninteresting. FEMEN is the opposite of that.

Natalia: Would you describe yourselves as a feminist organization?

Anna: No. We use eroticism in our approach and our dress. That’s not sanctioned by feminism.

Natalia: Personally, I’m a feminist and I’m down with eroticism and revealing clothing. I bristle when some of my Western compatriots criticize me. I tell them that this is how every woman in my family looks, and I’m not about to switch from dresses to burlap sacks because of someone else’s perverted reaction to the dresses.

Anna: Exactly. Look, this is part of our culture. To deliberately make yourself unattractive in Ukraine is to consign yourself to the margins. That’s not what we want.

Natalia: Our culture, of course, has its dark side.

Anna: Yes, because we conceive of beauty as something that’s there to be demeaned. Look at our night clubs. This is where our young girls go to get groomed to trade on their looks as if it’s their main function in life. Showing off your boobs and getting a free drink is promoted as the pinnacle of womanly achievement.

Natalia: Which brings us to the sex industry. Why do you so strongly disapprove of it?

Anna: Ukraine is a very patriarchal society. Our sex industry is fueled by poverty and, let’s face it, ignorance. It’s a completely immoral, exploitative business.

Natalia: What do you think of harm reduction and decriminalization in regards to sex-work?

Anna: I’m not going to stand on the street and beat prostitutes over the head with my purse and ask them to reflect upon their deeds. I think harm reduction is important. These women should be working without additional risks to their lives. But let’s get real about Ukrainian society. If we decide that prostitution is suddenly OK, all hell will break loose. Around here, people don’t think about purchasing sex, they think of it as purchasing a human being. That’s very different from, say, a legal brothel in a nation where, perhaps, attitudes are different. You know, I even heard that in foreign brothels, nobody wants to entertain Russian or Ukrainian clients, because these men have a reputation for serious abuse.

Natalia: Why do you think this is the case in Ukraine?

Anna: We never had a sexual revolution to speak of. In the Soviet days, we were all repressed. We’re still reaping the consequences of that. You know the old saying: “there’s no sex in the Soviet Union.” On one level, that was true. Sex was largely unacknowledged. I don’t think that things have improved so much in recent years. We don’t have decent sex education in this country. And we’re still very sexist.

Natalia: I’ve read some accounts of what prostitutes around here go through on a regular basis, and have spoken to several, and some of the stories are hair-raisingly horrifying. Even the people who are supposed to be protecting these women often get in on the act.

Anna: I’m telling you, the sex industry here is merciless. So when people talk about decriminalization, or legalization, I have to ask them to stop and think about the implications. I think our sex-workers need help, but I also worry about the young girls who are set to become sex-workers. What they’re getting into is a nightmare.

"Ukraine is not a brothel." Photo courtesy of FEMEN.

Natalia: FEMEN has also been actively involved in confronting foreign men who come to this country to get laid. Why do you choose these methods?

Anna: Because foreign men are confronting us! I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve spoken to a girl who was treated like trash by some sex tourist who has decided that Ukraine is his personal playground. These men come here with attitudes of utter entitlement, and that needs to change.

There is a strong anti-trafficking effort going on now, which is great, but people forget that sex tourism and trafficking can be linked. How many girls were wooed by some charming foreigner to end up being sold into a brothel abroad? The Euro 2012 Football Championship is coming up as well. Can you imagine how brutal it’s going to be around here when drunken football fans descend on this country? Can you imagine how our women are going to be treated by them?

Natalia: Flying in and out of this country, I sometimes get stuck next to a really sleazy American or Brit. Once he ascertains that I want nothing to do with him, he’ll start pressing me to introduce him to my friends and relatives.

Anna: Oh, it gets much worse than that. It can degenerate into street harassment. Now, I’m not talking about foreigners who come here to work or study or whatever, I’m talking about those people who are deliberately here to take advantage of women. We have groups of young Turkish men literally shouting at women in the street. I asked a Turkish journalist recently: “What would happen if groups of Ukrainian men shouted at women like that in, say, Istanbul?” He had a hard time even imagining such a scenario. Why should it be any different in Ukraine?

Natalia: Stereotypes about us are pretty cemented. In the Middle East, I made the mistake of disclosing my ethnic background to a taxi driver once. He instantly decided I was sexually available. After that, I’d just tell people I’m American. Of course, they’d take a good look at me in the rear view mirror and say, “But you look so Russian!” The way they stared at me when they said it, it was frightening.

Anna: I have a friend who works as a bartender in Germany, and she looks like you – a typical Slav. She tells everyone she’s from Finland. She used to be more honest with people, but then they’d offer her money to have sex with them. Pitifully small amounts of money too! Not only do they think you’re a whore, they think you’re a cheap whore, someone whose desperation can exploit. It is frightening. And these people don’t have a clue about the economic and social circumstances that lead so many of our women into this trade. Or else they are happy to overlook them. Well, we’re here to remind them that no, actually, you don’t get to overlook that.

Natalia: I once sat next to an American at a dinner here in Kiev, and he spent the entire evening talking about how Ukrainian women are disgusting bimbos because so many of us don’t exactly like to cover up. Maybe if I had been a FEMEN girl, I’d have thrown a pie at his face.

Anna: It’s strange, isn’t it? Foreigners come here and have a completely bizarre reaction to our women. I say, they need to respect our traditions. There’s nothing wrong with women who dress provocatively. It’s our style. Get over it.

The other day, I saw this family on the street: a mother, a father, and a little kid. The woman was wearing incredibly tiny shorts and had an amazing body. There was nothing wrong or unnatural about it. Her husband looked happy to be next to her. They looked content and in love. Who the hell has a right to criticize that?

Natalia: Speaking of love, is it hard for a politically active Ukrainian woman to find it?

Anna: Sure. I work in concert organizing, but consider FEMEN to be my actual career. There’s a phrase I use a lot right now: “another one has run away.” For me, it’s hard to find a man who understands me and takes what I do seriously. But it’s not impossible either. There are plenty of men out there who are kind. Kindness, I think, is what’s important. Plus, it’s not like you have to start out a relationship with talking about politics. You have to click first.

Anna strikes a pose on the mean streets of Kyiv.

Natalia: Do you think Ukrainian men are generally threatened by strong women?

Anna: I think many Ukrainian men find strong women inconvenient. Think about your typical Soviet set-up, which is still around nowadays: both partners work, but when the wife comes home at 6 p.m., she launches herself into housework, while the husband relaxes. A strong woman may not stand for that. I’m not saying this is a problem in every household, but it exists. It’s prominent.

Natalia: I’m struck by how Western women often talk about there being a clear choice between career and home. I don’t think Soviet women entertained that notion.

Anna: A career is something you do devote yourself to immensely. You make sacrifices. It’s not that those sacrifices are necessarily incompatible with having a family, but it can be much harder. In terms of plain old work – you are right. Our women did both. And continue to do both. And it’s often very thankless.

Natalia: So how do you go about changing that mentality wherein a woman is exploited but doesn’t do anything about it?

Anna: I believe that women must be educated about their rights, which is what FEMEN is all about. Just to give you an example: so many girls don’t even have a clue that if they’re being sexually harassed, they have the right to appeal to a police officer for help. Obviously, not all police officers might care, but we’ve had positive experiences. There are good cops out there. There is good out there in general.

We can change things here. People tell me, “hey, Ukraine’s not so bad, at least child prostitution here isn’t as bad as in Thailand.” And I say – oh yeah? So should we wait around until it’s worse than in Thailand? No. We need to be active right now. That’s the ultimate goal: helping women get to that stage where more and more of us refuse to be docile, or to be treated as objects, as original sin in the flesh.

I overhead one of our cops say something great to a street harasser the other day; he said, “hey, if it’s not yours, do not touch.” If that’s not wisdom, I don’t know what is.

“Well, what did she expect?” One of the two women remarked casually. “He makes most of the money in that family anyway.”

Irritated, I ended up splashing my tea all over my lap.

In response to such commonly held stereotypes as the one exhibited by the two women in the coffee shop, a new anti-domestic violence ad campaign has been launched in Ukraine. Having written about the TV ad earlier this year, I have now turned my attention to the visual ads that have been popping up all over the capital and elsewhere. The anti-domestic violence push is being coordinated by Ukraine’s Ministry of Family, Youth & Sport, with the UNDP being one of the organizations involved.

I recently spoke with Larissa Kobelianska at the UNDP about the campaign, and got wind of some hair-raising statistics: “50% of Ukrainian women who are on sick leave or have been hospitalized due to trauma were hurt by their significant others,” Larissa told me. Considering the fact that many Ukrainian women work labour-intensive jobs where trauma is a risk, this figure is particularly stunning.

“Our first ad campaign used a very glamorous model,” Larissa went on to say. “This is because many people are of the opinion that domestic violence only occurs among severely marginalized people. In fact, it’s a problem for all social classes.”

Keeping in mind the conversation I’d recently overheard, I asked Larissa about the ad’s tagline: “Enough putting up with presents like this!” This tagline accompanies a woman with an “accessory” that’s actually a series of bruises. I wondered whether or not ideas about equality and finances figured into the conception of the ad.

“Sure,” she said. “Many people believe that if a man provides any financial support for a woman, he’s entitled to do whatever he wants with her. We’re trying to change that perception. We’re also trying to change the famous stereotype of ‘if he hits you, he loves you.’ Abuse is not an expression of love.”

Larissa also talked to me about the latest ads that feature famous Ukrainian boxer Alina Shaternikova with one black eye and a tagline that reads: “I put up with it because I want to win. Why do you?”

“We featured Alina, because we want women to start asking themselves the question – ‘what am I doing here? Why am I letting this happen to me?’ Trauma is part of Alina’s life because she is a boxer, she has her reasons for that black eye. But violence on the home-front is a very different thing.”

Maria (not her real name) is a nurse I’ve met recently via some relatives who used to be concerned about her home situation. She tried to explain to me why she put up with her husband’s violent rages for over a decade:

“He was a very hard worker with a very stressful job… He was a respected man. I wished he didn’t have a temper, but I knew about it when I married him. Of course, I didn’t know how bad it would get. But I felt it was wrong to divorce him on those grounds. I didn’t want to end up alone either. ”

Maria never did get her divorce. Her husband died of a heart attack shortly after she moved out.

“After his death, his family blamed me. They said if I hadn’t moved to my mother’s, he would have never had his heart attack. But he had already put me in the hospital twice by then. It was either me or him.”

Maria struck me as a classic example of a woman who, cowed by a man’s superior status (both in terms of his job and simply by virtue of male privilege), will put up with practically anything for as long as they remain together. Abandonment is a common theme in many Ukrainian families, and those women who manage to “hold on” to their men are often held up as symbols of feminine patience and grace. Anything but being alone!

As an unmarried woman in my mid-twenties, I know that pressure too well. Society coaches us into believing that male bachelors are just fun-loving rascals enjoying their lives to the fullest, while women without husbands are sad little hags.

How bad did it get for Maria?

“The second time, the doctor told me I was lucky to be alive…I couldn’t go to the police, that would have been humiliating. But I needed to leave.”

I asked Maria if she’d seen the ads all over Kyiv. She said no. She said she’d probably look away from such an ad, because she doesn’t want to focus on her past.

“But if a woman walking by is reminded that maybe what’s happening isn’t right, then that’s a good thing.”

Of course, without active steps from Ukrainian men, domestic violence will probably not cease any time soon. The National Network of Male Leaders Against Domestic Violence was recently launched in Ukraine as a way to counter-act the notion that ending domestic violence is a task to be placed squarely on the shoulders of women. While the results of all of these efforts remain to be seen, at the very least, I have hope that the tone of the conversations I keep eavesdropping on in and around Kyiv may change sometime soon.

The mainstream of Russian society is, I would argue, undeniably macho. At the very least, this is the image that people often like to project. Russian women may work as scientists, criminal investigators and engineers, for example, but they do so knowing that they shouldn’t “get ahead of themselves.” Men are the ones that, whether on the surface or not, inevitably run society and they won’t let you forget it. Even in progressive families, young women are often reminded that for a marriage to be successful, it’s important to at least make a man think he is making all the major decisions. A decidedly cloying, submissive, sugary version of femininity is worshiped in the media and on holidays such as March 8th. Internationally, Russian women are understood as perpetually sexually available receptacles.

And yet, Russian women are being murdered in high-profile killings, in circumstances murky enough to make a thriller author blush. Anna Politkovskaya. Anastasiya Baburova. And now, Natalia Estemirova.

This begs the question – if women really are “the weaker sex,” why are they dangerous enough to dispatch with bullets?

Now, Slavic women have long been taught to disassociate themselves from the violence committed against their sisters. As prominent feminist Maria Dmitryeva put it to me – “We’re taught to think – ‘I am a good girl. And bad things only happen to bad girls.’ It’s a concept of false safety.” Although Estemirova’s killing is publicly being met with shock, privately, I can imagine most people are thinking – “why did she stick her neck out in the first place?”

Estemirova worked in the Caucus, arguably one of the most macho regions of macho Russia. She investigated human rights abuse in Chechnya. Although internationally, consensus has already been reached and “pro-government” figures are thought as the likely culprits, the truth is, this woman could have crossed just about anyone. In a region with a history of war and ongoing violence, plenty of people may have wanted Natalia Estemirova dead.

People are used to seeing Russia as a place with top-down murder conspiracies that inevitably originate in the Kremlin. The truth is, Russia is a huge place that still operates under the saying “the sky is high, the Czar is far” – meaning that both great distances and cultural and ideological barriers make enforcing both the law and private interests in Moscow much different than from enforcing them in, say, Ingushetia, where Estemirova’s body was found. This isn’t to say that Estemirova was a particularly “convenient” person for existing power structures in the Caucus.

What I keep coming back to, however, isn’t the mystery of Estemirova’s death, but that which is most obvious about it. You destroy that which you believe in. And Estemirova’s killers must have believed in Estemirova – believed in her power, believed in the danger she presented to them and their methods – especially when you consider the fact that she was kidnapped in plain sight, a gesture as terrifying as it is symbolic.

Both outsiders and many Russians themselves have a mythologizing approach toward Russian and, in general, Slavic femininity. A “real” Russian woman is beautiful, of course, and, what’s more important, she does not “threaten” a man’s view of himself as fundamentally better. This is a fantasy that is belied by the existence of women like Natalia Estemirova, the ones who, like their male counterparts, can only be subdued with a gun.

Today, in a taxi in Amman, I idly wondered if a comeback was possible as a Michael Jackson billboard loomed on the roadside. I noticed that the billboard did not feature a picture, just a dark silhouette frozen in the act of performing the moonwalk. A real-life image of Jackson was not featured to promote his scheduled concerts in London, and it was painfully obvious why this was the case.

While the news of Michael Jackson’s death has already caused an explosion on Twitter, I was tempted to go back to a June 5th advice column by Salon’s Cary Tennis, which featured the letter of a Jackson fan, eager to have the King of Pop perform in the United States again. I recalled the letters to that column, about Jackson “going to seed” and about the importance of holding on to the music, as opposed to holding on the musician. Although it’s hard to let go of one’s childhood heroes, a part of me had to agree.

A survivor of molestation myself, I couldn’t make sense of Michael Jackson’s turbulent history with allegations of child abuse. A few years ago, I actually went out of my way to speak to a bona fide “psychologist to the stars” (he declined to be quoted by name) about possible theories on Jackson. The psychologist in question claimed that Jackson seemed incredibly immature, a kid trapped in an adult body. It seemed to him that Jackson never progressed past a certain stage in his psycho-sexual development, probably due to his difficult childhood and the early onset of fame.

Was he a predator? My expert could not claim to have reached a definite conclusion, having never actually treated Jackson. But privately, having looked at the evidence and Jackson’s history, he doubted the allegations of systematic and deliberate victimization of children. This was, I suppose, a polite way of saying that while Jackson was a mess, he was not some typical, crafty child abuser. This was something that didn’t make me feel at all clear on the subject, but it did make me appreciate the gravity of early fame.

Michael Jackson’s recent antics in the Middle East had only confirmed the obvious continuation of the troubles in his life. Westerners tend to be a little more cynical about Jackson than many of the people far removed from his country of birth, and it seemed to me that Jackson understood that he was more readily embraced abroad. Unfortunately, people who ran into him in the Gulf were often struck by the morbidity of Jackson’s appearance and overall situation.

People are already saying that Michael has largely been “dead” for the last decade and a half anyway, and yet I can’t help but think that his problems started much earlier than that. In spite of them, or, perhaps, because of them (who knows just how madness and genius can interact?), he still produced ground-breaking albums before he successfully mummified himself. And that should count for something, in the end.

As inexplicable as Jackson’s persona was at times, the world will let go of it and go back to the music. As a character in a Stephen King book said once, “… the pain stops and the good memories begin” – eventually. Considering the fact that even my teenage brother – in all of his snarky adolescent glory – can belt out the lyrics to “Thriller,” Jackson’s legacy is ensured.

With respect to Jackson’s grieving family members, I find it heartening that he passed away in the middle of planning a major comeback. Michael Jackson is at peace, while the planet can now safely wonder as to what could have been.

Yulia Tymoshenko’s glamorous image, coupled with the prism of sexism that can often distort a female politician’s nature in the public eye, hides an iron-clad will to succeed. Famous for her bold and even inflammatory rhetoric during the Orange Revolution (at one point, she was quoted as saying that Donbas region of Ukraine might as well be cut off from the rest of Ukraine with barbed wire, due to the region’s lack of support for Victor Yuschenko), Tymoshenko neverthless knows when to play ball with the Russian Federation. Even her desire for Ukraine to eventually join the EU is tempered by placating rhetoric toward Russia. Unlike Western commentators, who don’t have to live next to Russia, Tymoshenko is well aware of the possible ramification of long-standing political conflict in her neck of the woods.

The real challenge for the Ukrainian electorate right now is trying to decide which candidate is better suited to fight corruption. When I spoke to Nicholas of Kiev Ukraine News Blog to get his opinion on the situation, he replied that

“[Tymoshenko] will certainly try to curb corruption and maybe successful if the oligarchs do not stand in her way. Her first order of business is to bring the rule of law into Ukraine. Second would be to fire most judges and bring in some fresh blood. Judges are extremely corrupt and there is no way to rehabilitate them. Third, clean up house in the Interior Ministry.”

Relations with Russia, the EU and the United States take a backseat to the more immediate problems facing Ukraine at this juncture, and not even Russia’s recent military conflict with Georgia can quite distract from internal problems (even if President Yuschenko did attend various photo-ops in the aftermath of that debacle). Although rhetoric about the U.S. “meddling” (most recently in the latest round of the Ukraine-Russia gas spat) figures into the national discourse, it’s hard to worry about other countries when your own is literally falling apart. Nicholas’s point about corrupt judges is especially salient – if the cogs and wheels of the justice systems are broken, Ukraine’s very identity as a nation is blurred by the enduring free-for-all.

My anonymous source at a local prosecutor’s office in Kyiv recently mentioned the appalling data on the amount of people currently spending time in prison – aside from the violent criminals, these are largely small fish. A great deal of “bigger fish” – criminals that commit fraud on a massive scale, for example – get to buy their freedom. How are Ukrainians supposed to feel about being Ukrainian when they see this happening all around them? How can you function as a citizen if you cannot put your trust in the state?

Nicholas went on to remind me that

“Corruption is a way of life in Ukraine. It’s been around since Communists came into power in 1918. It’s also a way for many civil servants, doctors, teachers, etc. to supplement their miserable state salaries.

Bottom line, in my opinion, corruption will be around for many years to come, but someone has to start, sometime.”

Right now, Yulia Tymoshenko has positioned herself as this “someone.” One does have lingering doubts about her style of leadership, however. When she poses with a katana, ostensibly to present herself as someone ready for a hardcore battle against corruption, one gets the distinct whiff of Cult of Personality about her.

Nearly two decades after the demise of the Soviet Union, the old reflex to rely on politicians whose own rhetoric can be just as absurd as any foreign “expert’s” proclamation is still there. Quite simply, the population, the older generation especially, is not yet used to interrogating its elected officials quite on the same scale as in older democracies.

Only time can tell whether or not Yulia Tymoshenko is up to scratch this time around, but, at the very least, it is important to stop categorizing her in such broad terms as “pro-Western” or “pro-Russian.” The real question is whether or not Ms. Tymoshenko is pro-Ukrainian, in the real sense of that word.