Recently it became known that the woman who wrote about the murder of fem activist Anastasia Emelyanova, who fled to Turkey, was herself a fem activist who settled in Tashkent. The threads connect: a Russian feminist leaving Russia for a Muslim country, choosing the patriarchal Erzurum to live in, meeting a Syrian in a basement, planning marriage, and ultimately meeting death at the hands of someone she called the most compassionate rabbit, a lifelong figure. This is reported by another feminist living in Tashkent; in many places, women still haul heavy bags at the market as they go about their daily chores.
From a different vantage point, if the reader did not live in Russia and were, say, Swedish or American, one might suppose these women embarked on missions to spread equal rights, thinking women’s equality had already taken root at home. They might have perceived a mission to educate the more conservative segments of society. Yet the narrator lives in Russia and suspects a program failure brought feminists into Islamic countries. Cells multiply, sometimes without intent, and diseases emerge. In a parallel way, Russian feminism faces internal challenges that resemble autoimmune disruptions—unpredictable, sometimes self-destructive, and frequently misdirected.
Turning to the February 24 consequences, one aspect that deserves emphasis is a humanitarian catastrophe: a mass departure of people who still identify as progressive and enlightened, compelled by a growing shadow. Some chose migrations to poorer, less liberal, or more traditional countries. People fled to places where their ideas found fewer adherents. Activists seeking freedom of expression relocated to Armenia, Georgia, and Turkey. Human rights advocates settled in Kazakhstan, Thailand, and Uzbekistan. The migration of feminists to Islamic regions reads as an oxymoron to many observers.
The public face of Russian feminism has been evolving for years. The movement outside Russia has often been led by what is described in some circles as intersectional feminism, or what others might call a form of left liberal activism. Within Russia, some strands of feminism have been associated with financial support from Western foundations, a reality that has colored debates about women’s rights. In particular, the presence of paid surrogacy and calls for the legalization of prostitution have created frictions and prompted strong counterarguments about the direction of feminist work.
Those who resist both approaches and defend a ban on coercion that reduces women to selling themselves are often labeled radicals. This mirrors a broader global debate about women’s autonomy, control over their bodies, and the role of feminism in public life. The same debates touch the rights of transgender people. The discussion around figures like JK Rowling, who faced criticism from some feminists over their stances on transgender participation in women’s spaces, has been used to illustrate broader tensions. Since the mid-2010s, a segment of feminists has engaged in gender-focused campaigns, advocating for trans rights and signing petitions. The result has been a range of social energy and controversy that spills into daily life in many places, including Russia.
Street violence, abusive spouses, and the decriminalization of domestic assaults have all played out against a backdrop of a shift in priorities for many younger Russian feminists. Instead of demanding broader maternity protections, some campaigns promoted working from home as a revolutionary benefit, allowing mothers to work while caring for a child. Large Russian companies claimed to meet the needs of independent women by permitting remote work after birth, a topic that reverberated through media discourse and policy debates. The idea of full-time home working after childbirth was presented as a major breakthrough, even as it sparked controversy in the public square.
Why did feminism absorb these kinds of arguments? Was the movement reduced to defending a version of feminist activism that included support for trans rights and, to some critics, the prioritization of market-friendly policies? The author pondered these questions and concluded that the domestic feminist landscape lagged behind its counterparts in some other countries. It is often claimed that there is little maternity leave in other places, with paid benefits being less robust and workers facing long stretches without compensation. The political and economic systems in those countries shape the scope and reach of women’s rights campaigns. Critics suggest that some movements abroad, influenced by different governance structures, do not align with the practical realities of daily life in Russia.
In summary, the picture painted here suggests that women’s protections in European parts of Russia are frequently shaped more by lawfulness and enforcement than by explicit gender equality. Some argue that the legacy of the Soviet-era codifications still lingers in how laws are applied and perceived. Women in Russia may not describe themselves as victims of systemic discrimination, but rather as people navigating a landscape where legal protections do not always translate into real-world safety. The result is a tension between ideal rights and the day-to-day efficacy of enforcement. In this setting, some outspoken feminists press for a broad spectrum of causes—surrogacy regulation, pronoun policies, and varied discussions around transgender rights—while others advocate a narrower focus on resisting patriarchal structures. The louder voices often drown out the quieter ones seeking genuine reform in society and law, a pattern observed in multiple regions. The narrative here hints at a broader truth: activism flourishes in pockets, yet the overall movement faces challenges when confronted with entrenched social norms and inconsistent legal protection.
Ultimately, the piece reflects on the tension between ideals and practicality. The author’s stance may differ from that of editors or other readers, but the perspective remains a call to examine how feminist activism is received, implemented, and kept alive within a country with a long, storied history of social change. It emphasizes the need to distinguish between high-minded campaigns and the lived realities of women who strive for safety, autonomy, and dignity in everyday life.