Maria Bashmakova Why it is harmful to explain to children who a real man and woman are 09/07/2024, 08:01

At the end of August, the Ministry of Education presented the work program of the extracurricular course “Family Studies” for grades 5-9. It was developed by the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Institute for Educational Development Strategy”. The explanatory note states that the course aims to “instill in students an understanding of the family and traditional family relations as a value in the life of a modern person” and “to gain experience in forming patterns of behavior and interpersonal relationships in the family.”

The fourth part of the lesson, called “The most important thing in the house is the weather …”, is devoted specifically to the topic “What is the basis of the family?”, Which children need to understand. What is “masculinity” and “femininity”? And here everyone stumbles – the teacher, the student, the reader, and I, wondering what the authorities are planning a conversation about.

Defining “feminine” and “masculine” qualities is like meeting the Silver Hoof: few have seen this magnificent beast, but everyone wants to catch it and profit from its jewels. Empirically, these qualities cannot be described; they cannot be weighed or measured.

On the one hand, the terms “real woman” and “real man” are associated with advertising images copied in mass culture. On the other hand, since there are “real” ones, there are also “fake” ones, that is, “fake men”, “pseudo-women”. Apparently, these are “manly women” and cute men. Traditional society, in a period of social instability, jealously guards gender stereotypes, fearing that roles will be confused, otherwise chaos will ensue. Historian George Mosse writes about this in detail in his book “The Image of a Man”.

Leading conservative-traditionalist Archbishop Andrei Tkachev struck down men on August 30. He condemned men for their passive attitude towards the church and the war: “You have given faith into the hands of women, you lazy ones, you have given everything holy into the hands of poor women who cannot bear this burden. What are you doing?” According to the priest, the main thing is for the man in the family to know about the existence of God, to pray and read divine books.

Tkachev never tires of reminding his flock of their basic gender duties: men must fight and pray, women must give birth, obey their husbands, and also pray. Those who disagree are, of course, mistaken in their immorality. Tkachev has previously stated that he considers women’s desire to occupy responsible positions in power a “disease” and “infection.”

According to his views, the priest is certainly not a pioneer. In our country, the intensity of discussions on the issue of women, that is, on women’s rights, arose in the second half of the 19th century. Only instead of media bloggers and priests, famous writers and publishers spoke. Tkachev’s rhetoric was developed in the 1870s by the critic Nikolai Strakhov. He, as a staunch conservative, was an enemy of emancipation, and therefore in his article “The Women’s Question”, defending the “True Purpose of Women”, he described the “danger” of such ideas. He stated that one who rejects the ideal of a wife and mother “will more easily ruin his destiny than anyone else and will” deform himself “morally. “A sexless woman is needed for public affairs,” he said, explaining that a woman who rejects marriage can achieve “sexuality.” Strakhov himself knew little about marriage and being single.

Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya admitted in her diary: in the first year of family life she and her husband quarreled over “women’s issues.” Dostoevsky disliked the nihilists for “their denial of all femininity, their sloppyness and their vulgar, affected style.” In his “Diary of a Writer”, written in 1873, he wrote quite differently about the Russian woman: “In our woman, sincerity, perseverance, seriousness and honor, the search for truth and self-sacrifice are becoming more and more evident; and all this has always been higher in Russian women than in men.”

Today, “female coaches” attract potential viewers by promising to “reveal your femininity” and “attract a worthy man.” That is, “femininity” is a kind of currency and bait in the marriage market. The program of a track or marathon will necessarily include the words “abundance”, “prosperity”, “fullness”, “source”. In general, femininity must be opened like a bottle, otherwise you either do not have it, or you rot, crushed under the weight of something extra. And as soon as this moment comes, worthy men will immediately flock to your source jewelry to strengthen their abundance. This is the magic in the skirt.

By the way, about clothes. Social stereotypes strongly associate a woman with kindness, tenderness, motherhood, gentleness and passivity. Accordingly, the collective conservative image is a long-haired beauty in a dress (though why should she be beautiful?). The same “brave man” next to her flexes his muscles, sticking out his stubborn, determined, strong and ruthless jaw. I repeat, these are stereotypes; in fact, femininity and masculinity are confused with sexuality and these are different things.

It is rather strange to try to fit a modern person into stereotypes, but as you know, they are inflexible. Femininity has many faces. A girl can braid her hair, decorate her skirt with roses and wear a kokoshnik, or she can wear a short haircut and jeans – it’s up to her. And at the same time be feminine. After all, this quality is definitely not determined by the length of the hair. Like masculinity – the presence of sexual characteristics and the power of the fist.

While browsing coaching sites, I read: “Femininity is a bottomless element that inevitably draws men into deep waters.” But these citizens do not marry fatal women, but feminine ones, so if you want to get married, go develop your femininity. Like the piriformis muscle. What if it’s flabby? And it’s not very clear how and why a woman who does not fit into the Procrustean bed of the “source man” stereotype in her life, but has a job and children. Is it really possible to channel the absolute and breathe correctly?

You will be surprised, but a careful reading of familiar stories from childhood can somewhat shake the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b”male” and “female”. Natalya Pushkareva, head of the Center for Gender Studies of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, writes about this in her article “Once again about non-masculine men in the Russian national tradition.” The fairy-tale Ivan Tsarevich is feminine: handsome, distinguished by a docile and affectionate temperament, “bursts with burning tears” in trouble, does not shine with intelligence and, unlike fairy-tale beauties with magical potential, intelligence, is sometimes lazy and hard work. Nikolai Berdyaev wrote about the “feminine” in the Russian soul, overcoming gender stereotypes.

What does this mean? I believe that the pedagogical task of explaining what “masculinity” and “femininity” are in a family studies class is impractical today. After all, it is one thing to have an image on a poster, and quite another to see it in real life.

Meanwhile, St. Petersburg Governor Alexander Beglov, speaking at the city pedagogical council on August 27, suggested introducing mixed-use classes in schools. “Why can’t a child become a hairdresser, a designer or a cook? Maybe this has already changed in our minds,” Beglov said. And this is a rare case when you can’t argue with him.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.