Essay: Lives of women in early 20th century soviet union.

Part B: Investigation
Question: To what extent did Bolshevik policy and propaganda play a role in shaping the lives of women in early 20th century soviet union.
Introduction
Famous Scholar Alexis de Tocqueville once credited the spread of equality as the key to the transformation of all western social and political systems within society. The revolutionary leaders who propelled the creation of a new soviet state promised a radical rebuilding of society, one in search for equality. These leaders believed in fundamental transformation of all economic and social institutions that would result in the destruction of  the very roots of inequality as well as permitting the construction of a new and egalitarian social order.Lenin once stated that: “The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women.”.
This commitment to social equality was a vital component of larger egalitarian values that extended to class, ethnicity and sex. These traits had long been highlighted as the major bases for discrimination and exclusion within capitalist society. Bolsheviks and Feminists alike portrayed the change that the communist revolution had brought about as milestone for female liberation. The first time in which there was a complete and total economic, political, social and sexual egalitarianism of woman was an important political goal. Lenin was quoted as saying “In the course of two years of Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of europe more has been done to emancipate woman, to make her the equal of the ‘strong’ sex, than has been done during the past 130 years by all the advanced, enlightened, ‘democratic’ republics of the world taken together” -Vladimir Lenin.
There is of course a historical dispute over the veracity of these claims but Soviet source on one had support this view by pointing to the long list of accomplishments in the sphere of social gender equality such as; full political and legal equality for women, female participation in the labour force, Equal access to educational and professional opportunities. Very liberal family legislation regulating marriage, divorce and abortion, Extensive maternal protective legislation as well as public childcare facilities. Therefore, The emancipation of soviet women is directly attributed the establishment of socialism in the view of both bolsheviks and feminists.
Another perspective begs to disagree and argue that by emphasizing the radical changes in the position of women that have come about as a consequence of the revolution of October 1917. Opposition argue that this viewpoint ignores the number of ways in which old forms of activity had actually been integrated by an old one, revolutionary change in russia had not brought about complete change in social attitudes yet.
Wintin this study and investigation, we plan to uncover, discuss and evaluate the merits of both sides of this debated topic and evaluate the impact that bolshevik ideology and policy had on the political, social, economic lives of soviet women. To what extent did Bolshevik policy and propaganda play a role in shaping the lives of women.
Post/Revolutionary Russia
1800s
Female Entrepreneurship in the Russian Empire had indeed come to play an important role by the beginning of the twentieth century.  Female owners of enterprises and commercial facilities came from various social stratas – from landowning aristocrats to merchants. Near the end of the 19th century, female entrepreneurship had started to play and important role in the Russian economy.
As a result, there were a certain class of russian women with a considerable amount of wealth The first All-Russian Population Census took place on 28th of January 1897. This census revealed women constituted 13.3%  among persons owning independent trade businesses. An important example of this is Vera Firsanova, one of Moscow’s richest female entrepreneurs. Firsanova attempted to repossess her personal property which she had, at the time of her marriage, formally handed over to her husband infidelity. Firsanova resorted to legal means in order to once again become owner of her property.
In the 1860s, Alexander II aimed at modernising the economy, which was essentially still based on feudalism. The push towards  industrialization in the 1880s, occurred alongside the the growing impoverishment of the peasantry and then more and more women went into work, often related to work they would typically do at home.
Violence against women in russia persisted despite the reforms of the next tsar, In the early 1940s Literary critic Vissarion Belinsky, was repeated in the 1850s by another critic, Nikolai Dobroliubov. These two critics believed that in order to give a woman serious education would have meant recognizing her right to a personality which goes against all russian tradition. Within a patriarchal peasant system which survived urbanization, industrialisation, war and revolution, the idealized russian feminine figure is passive and self sacrificing.
The Abolition of Serfdom in 1861 resulted in an decrease in the peasant women’s ability to contribute economically. This push created a change in gender roles that was different from class to class with most of peasant women working at home and most gentry women working outside. Upper Class Women were seen in a different light, they had access to superior education and opportunities for jobs, specifically in health care and education.
All of these historical and social aspects of post soviet russia play a pivotal role in the economic and political changes that russia was about to undergo due to the political revolutions. The had social emilication as well as economic and political ones, prior to the revolution of 1917, Marriage was seen as the main achievement for women after the revolution that was new longer the case but they were still pressured to make product as well as reproductive contributions to society
1900s
During the beginning of revolution in 1905, employers would frequently turn to women as potential employees which was seen in a negative light by most western feminists. They believed that these changes resulted in a ‘double burden’ of women, “a beast of burden” submissive in the face of brutal patriarchy. The words of a russian exile, Ivan Golovine.
In 1905, women were aware of their political development being only a spark . They needed a spokesperson who could speak at a public meeting and withstand a public meeting and organize them. Female workers were impeded in their effort to collectivise by men, who still believed that women were not capable of organization and leadership. Trade unions at this point were trying to increase female membership but positions of authority were take up entirely by men, even in predominantly female fields of work.
Feminists, just like revolutionaries, devoted their activism to the lives of woman as a class. The usual feminist tactics included working within the system to achieve gradual reform through peaceful and legal means. That was until the 1905 revolution, feminists in russia concentrated on philanthropic and educational activities. Despite this, upper-class feminists had tried to distinguish themselves from the revolutionaries.
Prominent feminists such as Nadezhda V. Stasova, Anna P. Filosofova and Mariia V. Trubnikova looked women’s movements in the west, including philanthropy and Partitioning and lobbying. Russian feminist in particular were concerned with the rights of gentry russian women, who had suffered as a result of the abolition of serfdom in 1861.
While they were campaigned for the entry of women into the workforce and higher education. They ran charities for the education and employment of gentry women and for the cheap accomodation single women in towns. These hostels offered refuge to potential victims of the moral dangers and temptations which the city, it was believed held in store for unprotected women.
Upper class feminists were known for being very socially isolated, their moderate values and willingness to compromise. As well as their patronising regime of their charitable institutions. This is what lead to an isolation between moderate upper class feminists from their more radical counterparts and from the lower class women they were trying to help.
Women who entered the labour force were faced with violence from male co-workers. Vera Karelina played a vital role in bringing women into political activity. Both she and her husband, Aleksei Karelin, dedicated themselves to working with people that were seen as unreachable by socialist intelligentsia: unskilled workers.
Although wages rose during the the war, they never kept in pace with inflation. Other women joined the army often initially disguised as men. Since the late nineteenth century, russian women had been involved in violence against the state, through terrorism while peasant women had taken part in rural unrest. The increasing number of men who were conspired in the war, provided women in general, with a wide variety of employment. Women who did not need to work for wages volunteered to serve as nurses at the front, out of patriotism as well as a senses of adventure.
1910’s
Despite the important part that women played in the overthrowing of tsarism in February, there were only a few women involved in the first Petrograd soviet. Only a year or so after the war had begun, Petrograd and cities in the north were already experiencing food shortages. With the conscription of men leaving lots of women behind and the increasing employment opportunities for women, the burden of the food crisis  during the war fell heavily on working class women. By the end of 1916 , female workers were spending on average 40 hours a week simply queueing for food and as a result women remained for the most part unskilled. Even though women in russia accounted for about 47 percent of the total workforce by 1917, Men kept the dominant positions. Even though it was mostly just men who were elected to the factory committees and forced to spend a lot of their time queueing for food.
The Economic Impact on Women in Post Revolution (1920s)
Intro
The political leader who attempted recreate society in a bolshevik government, believed in “women’s liberation through work”, a notion initially theorized by Friedrich Engels and earlier socialist thinkers. Engels believed that Men’s recognition of women as their equals would put an end to patriarchal views and ways. Based on this reasoning, female participation within the workforce helped facilitate their economic autonomy, allowing them to have greater control over their own lives. However the reality on the ground was much more different than Engels had initially theorized.
Alexandra Kollontai (1872-1953) is seen as the central figure of the liberation movement for women in russia, she was a pioneer In November 1918,in the development of marxist theory in sexual and gender relations. She, like Engels, believed that women would find empowerment and fulfillment in work away from home. She stressed the importance of women contributing to the economy. At the First National Congress of Women Workers, Aleksandra Kollontai made made an address painting a picture of women’s suffering under capitalism; They were like cinderella waiting for a liberator prince in a carriage but “comrades, we are done with the princes, and the golden carriages have all been expropriated. Your liberator is the worker, but he doesn’t have anything….”
Similar sentiments were repeatedly uttered by Lenin. Lenin consistently insisted that Bolshevism and feminism go hand in hand. That in Capitalism there were Landlord, Capitalists and Merchants but under socialism true equality could be achieved. A total transformation of the economic relationship was thought to be of great importance to implementing wider social and cultural change. However, the complete monopoly of political power by the Bolsheviks made it quite difficult for other political organizations, that had played a critical instrument in the revolutionary transformation of russia.
In response to these criticisms Lenin argued that because of russia’s backwardness political revolution was necessary for any cultural change that the party was seen as an “organizational weapon”.
In 1920, famous Bolshevik Konkordia Samoilova recorded the development of political awareness among working class and peasant women since the 1905 revolution. The First World War affected russian women in many different ways, accordingly based on class, status and geographical location.
For example, working class women became the main breadwinners; by replacing male workers because of the military conscription, educated women had more opportunities for employment in white collar posts and, only upper class, educated women seemed to view that was as potentially beneficial for women, giving them opportunities to prove their patriotism and their talents.
In 1921, the introduction of the New Economic Policy signaled and economic retrenchment that negatively affected female employment and curtailed social welfare programs. The full expansion of citizenship to women and the elimination of legal, civil, and political disabilities in early Soviet legislation were part of a larger effort to create a new political community defined on egalitarian terms.
The definition of rights and responsibilities were not just exclusively political and legal but also to economic and social activities. The right to work and all its obligations were defined as a condition of citizenship that in principle but not always in practice, extended to women.
As workers and peasants, women were exposed to harsh conditions of employment.
The abolition of private ownership over the means of production and the expropriation of the exploiters would give control over production to the workers themselves.The employment of women in industry work on a very large scale was stalled based on the economic expansion of educational opportunities and the creation of a network of child care facilities.
Far reaching changes in property relationships and inheritance laws weakened the family as an economic unit and the dominant position of the father within it. Other laws gave women equal rights to hold land to and all restrictions on women’s freedom of movement were abolished; no longer was a wife obliged to reside with her husband or accompany him in changes.
Other laws gave women equal rights to hold land and acts as heads of households. Women were were full members of rural communes and late to be paid as individuals rather than as part of a household for collective farm labour. Efforts to encourage the entry of women into the the labour force were helped by protective labour legislation based on or exceeding the most progressive European models. Equal pay for equal work was established as a fundamentally important principle.
In factories with large female population usually had lots of tension between trade union and zhenotdel members. Local Party organs frequently reduced to supply the necessary personnel for work among women, failed to carry out Zhenotdel programs, and in some instances actually liquidated local women’s sections, ordering Zhenotdel programs, and in some instances actually liquidated local women’s sections, ordering Zhenotdel activist to carry out other assignments.
Political Impact on Women in Lenin’s Russia (1920s)
Intro
Since the citizens of bolshevik states lacked many political rights their civic identities was tended to be formed by their gratitude towards the new rights they had been afforded. These rights such as guaranteed employment and social welfare benefits, rights that did not exist within democratic societies.
This new soviet regime promised to bring about the modernization of political institutions. Lenin claimed that the Soviet government was the first and only government in the world, to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws that placed women in an inferior position to men, that granted privileges to men, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children and property. The soviets wished to take great paces to achieve female political integration. “It is essential that women take a greater part in the elections”-Lenin
Lenin argued that It was important that female workers took on an increasingly important part of public service and enterprises and elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. “If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party–elect her to the Moscow Soviet.”
The proclamation of new rights and responsibilities of women was only a first step in their real emancipation. Lenin called on women to take on a larger political role. The other was the attempt to mobilize women politically, which involved the creation of the Zhenotdel, an extension of the communist party  meant to spread their influence to women.The need to inform women of their new position and to draw them into active participation in public life was even more fundamental .
The same small group of female activists who had been prominent in prewar efforts to organize women workers–particularly Kollontai, Armand, Krupskaia, and Nikolaeva–now played an important role in official approval to the creation of new organizational mechanisms for the mobilization of women.
On November 1918, the First All-Russian Congress of Working Women. A 1,000 women gathered in the Kremlin Hall of Unions, including workers and peasant women from distant regions of the country brightly dressed in local costume.After outlining the measures already taken by the soviet government to improve the position of women.
The congress led to the creation of Commissions for Agitation and Propaganda among working women also known as Zhenotdel. Local branches of Zhenotdel were attached to Party committees at every level of the hierarchy, staffed by volunteers recruited among Party women, and tasked with spreading the message of the party to the unorganized women in factories and village and drawing them into public affairs.Delegates for 1 for every 25 peasants and 5 workers, who would attend meeting as representatives in party, state and trade union agencies. The Zhenotdel was staffed by the wives and female relatives of Bolsheviks leaders, as well as by recruits from factory circles, it was accorded organizational recognition but marginal status.
Within the first years of the New Economic Policy, zhenotdel activists started a new fight for positioning within the political order. The new political and economic made it difficult for women’s sections to find proper footing. Female workers were being pushed out of their jobs in large numbers and Zhenotdel were losing funds to pay for intern programs and other programs which would’ve helped them recruit new female party members.
The women’s sections of the Party members were fighting for their existence. In order to defend themselves they pointed to the “special methods” that the sections introduce to the party, that increased the potential influence of the party over the female masses.The defenders of the women’s sections claimed that the NEP, not the Zhenotdel was responsible for the threat women may be to the revolution because of the worsening economic, political, and social situation under the NEP.
Because of their regimes explicit commitment to women workers, the zhenotdel felt they had the right to criticise the regime for failing in regime’s values. However, too much criticism was a very dangerous thing. Those within the women’s sections who did so usually found themselves under attack, by the regime and even their own zhenotdel colleagues.
The Zhenotdel was becoming increasingly vulnerable to accusations that it was a threat the party unity.The Zhenotdel were falling apart, many members of the women’s sections were calling for the liquidation of the women’s sections and others simply left. Many turned their attentions to practical efforts to solve the problems brought about by unemployment and famine. The Journal Komunistka, formed a rallying point for this opposition to the New Economic Policy.
In Kollontai’s words, the women’s sections should be “not eliminated but strengthened”. Kollontai made a point of insisting that women had a political role as bearers.“If  we look at male and female workers, we see that women are more energetic, more decisive , more capable of every suffering. Who is currently insisting we stay within our line.”
Kollontai, Krupskaia and other feminists believed that delegate meetings had shown great successes in reaching the masses. According to Kollontai, the meeting had reached some three to four million women through the election of 70,000 delegatki who represented them and reported back to them. In the city of Moscow, as many as 20% of the delegatki had joined the party during recent campaign.
The Zhenotdel was further accused of a one-sided emphasis on agitation, propaganda, and educational and cultural tasks that we might defined as consciousness raising and criticized for not focusing on any practical tasks.Another argument in favour of strengthening the women’s sections was the fact that only they, and not the trade unions or the agitation sections, had tried to fight the problem of women’s unemployment. Wordy speeches by the agitation section would never move women workers; only the women’s sections’ carefully developed “agitation by the deed” would influence them.
The fourth national zhenotdel conference in November 1921 also staunchly defended the sections’ work.During a decade of its existence it played a central role in the political mobilization of women. All restrictions on women’s freedom of movement were abolished no longer was a wife obliged to move with her husband. The problems Zhenotdel confronted were numerous. As latest as 1922 only 8 percent of the total membership were female. Even in the more urbanized regions of european russia, women played a very minimal public role. In rural areas, particularly in the Muslim regions of soviet central asia where female seclusion was a practice. In these regions, women were not only absent from public view but were inaccessible to Party and government agencies.
The Zhenotdel was concerned with the whole range of obstacles in the way of women’s political mobilization. In order to reach women, they needed to inform women. Wide literacy was necessary for wide political participation. “A person who can neither read nor write” Lenin insisted, “is outside politics; he must first learn the ABCs, without which there can be no such thing as politics, but merely rumours, gossip, fairy tales, and prejudices.”Increased female literacy would make it possible for the Zhenotdel and through it the Party, to reach a larger circle of women through Party journals to encourage women in political roles.
Zhenotdel encountered hostility and more. In Uzbekistan in 1928, 203 cases of anti feminist murder were reported. Despite this the Zhenotdel was able to grow a developing field of experienced female party members for government work and facilitating the political education of women, training and recruitment of women, to initiate women into public roles.
By 1927, there were still only 25 female party members for every 10,000 persons. Many avoided the party because peasants saw socialism and Bolshevism as synonymous with atheism, sexual license, and the destruction of the family. The political mobilization of urban women, particularly in the Slavic regions, was faced with fewer obstacles. In these regions there were rising rates of female participation in elections, local soviets and the Komsomol (Communist youth organization).
Increasing numbers of women were being appointed to responsible positions in the state and Party apparatus.The influence of the Zhenotdel was also evident in the more militant forms of self assertion by women, through mass demonstrations and conferences.
Social Lives of Women in 1920s Soviet Russia
Intro
“There is still more to be done though to achieve more than equality in law, rather equality in life.” Vladimir Lenin within this quote states clearly that that the social aspect of female equality are of the same importance as the social or economic aspects.The collapse of Tsarist autocracy under the bolshevik revolution of 1917, as well as the emergence of the bolsheviks as the rulers of the new soviet state created sudden and vast opportunities for social transformation.
The new leadership of the newly formed soviet union, were very critical of the social orders that were economic and political exploitation and exclusion, and social inequality. The alteration of female roles were seen as a result of changing bolshevik policy. Women in society began to take on much larger roles in the economic and political sphere, they could now be released from the petty domestic chores they had traditionally been confined to.
Ths change did not happen because of a edefining of male and female roles but rather a redistribution of familial and societal functions. WithIn the soviet union, the burden of household chores of work and childcare were meant to be shifted from the individual household to the social collective. The Bolsheviks wished to do this through Communal living arrangements that were meant to replace the small family unit as the building block of society.The evolving role for women from the initial confines of the household into the public sphere as well as their entrance into social product would definitely have an impact on all relationships between men and women.
Despite this planned utopian socialist vision of the family, the revolutionaries had not necessarily done much to achieve it. The was a vary of roadbloca; skepticism  of utopian visions, preoccupation with the critique of capitalism and the struggle of conquest for power among them. Their was also a general fear that the issue of gender equality could potentially an issue would rock the already fragile unity of the social party since this vision of an utopian sexually equal society was not broadly and unanimously shared across the bolsheviks. Rather, interest in egalitarian ideals were mostly associated with the left wing of the party. These left wing advocates were sometime met with hostility from other party members, who felt like such things were frivolous and a potential distraction from greater political roles.
The definition of rights and responsibilities were not just exclusively political and legal but also to economic and social activities. For Example, the Family Code of 1926, went further in giving legal recognition to de facto, unregistered marriages, and indeed avoided any definition of the family itself. One form of oppression described by Lenin, which was the oppression of women as women, would not be automatically eliminated by the socialist revolution itself. To eliminate the sexual division of labour that kept women in “Household bondage”, “overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.” ‘Women grow worn out in the petty, monotonous household work, their strength and time dissipated and wasted, their minds growing narrow and stale, their heart beating slowly, their will weakened.”
Lenin painted a vivid and poignant portrait of thee fate of russian peasant women chained to the narrow confines of the traditional household. ‘As long as women are engaged in housework” “Their position is still a restricted one. In order to achieve the complete emancipation of women and to make them really equal with men, we must have social economy, and the participation of women in general productive labour”
If the maintenance of the traditional household could have a corrosive effect on efforts at social change, then any far-reaching modernization of Russian life required a transformation. “In the course of two years of Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of europe more has been done to emancipate woman, to make her the equal of the ‘strong’ sex, than has been done during the past 130 years by all the advanced, enlightened, ‘democratic’ republics of the world taken together”
Lenin’s congratulatory statement has a staple of the new regime. By emphasizing the commitment of the new Soviet government to sexual equality, Lenin sought to defend its legitimacy in democratic terms. “Not a single state and no democratic legislation has done even half of what the soviet government did for women in the very first months of its existence”
Abortion was legalized in 1920, though as a health measure, quite independent of family legislation, whose main purpose was not so much to enhance women’s freedom of choice as to reduce the high mortality rates associated with illegal abortions. It was viewed as a necessary, but temporarily evil, rather than a positive contribution to female emancipation.
Abduction, forced marriage, the payment of kalym (bride price) and polygamy were singled out as targets, some compromises were made eg. Central asian republics became exempt from some new marriage laws, As Minister of Social Welfare in the new Soviet republic, Kollontai insisted that equal rights for women were not incompatible with special treatment for mothers. Marriage and divorce laws might have liberating consequences in the urban areas of European Russia had very different effect than central asia. In Central Asia they encouraged men to repudiate their less attractive and oldest wives, leaving them with no economic support. Moreover, if the participation of women in social production were not to occur at the expense of a desirable population increase, special measures were important to encourage fertility.
Family allowances would redistribute income in favour of large families, while new legislation would guarantee paid maternity leave before and after childbirth. The same measures that set the juridical foundations for the independence of women fed into a larger goal; the destruction of the network of economic, religious, and familial ties that bound women to traditional social solidarities roles and limited their participation in larger political and economic arena.
A fundamental attack on gender inequality required involved the abrogation of all legislation and legal practices that involved the subordination of women. Also the much more direct attack on the social norms and customs that perpetuated it. These policies could potentially backfire with serious repercussions. By encouraging women to assert their independence of local norms and kinship networks at a time where there were not viable substitutes had not yet been discovered. The task of organizing and constructing the communal institutions for dining and childcare that would liberate women from the petty cares of individual households was not complete.
After Lenin’s Death
“The backwardness of women, their lack of understanding for the revolutionary ideals  of the man, decrease his joy and determination in fighting. They are little worms which, unseen, slowly but surely rot and corrode.”-Stalin. Stalin’s perspective feared that the continuance of the nuclear family could have a disintegrating effect on social change the bolsheviks were working to achieve. Therefore the full integration of women into economic and political life was essential to comprehensive social change. Female mobilization must through a humanitarian and libertarian lens.
This was a popular sentiment in the articles and pamphlets of the female Party activists all over the country. This mindset was not just unique to Stalin, a particular emphasis was placed upon the special backwardness of women. This orientations effect was a shift i moving the discussion further away from the matter of female emancipation instead and emphasize women’s responsibilities rather than their burdens.The liberation of women, stalin was convinced was  their liberation of ignorance, not from oppression. Stalin described women as “enormous army of labour” and emphasized their use as a great economic and political force, as half the population
Another perspective, emphasized the economic advantages of collective child-rearing: “If in the individual family one mother raises 3-5 of her own children, then with communal child rearing one woman on the average will be able to raise 5-10 children of others.”
A third perspective revolved around the problem of social transformation. This orientation supported the political enlightenment of women. This extremely important not only for the sake of their own women’s contributions to society but also because of their role as mothers. Working and peasant women were mothers who raise our youth, the future of the country.
These conflicting orientations was most obvious in the debate over sexual liberation and future of the family. The Marxist intellectual tradition so the family as a malleable social construct as opposed to a permanent biological entity. The family was  seen as a form of oppression, since family was the most conservative of all social institution.
Equality within the family was enforced by new legal codes that insisted on identical rights and responsibilities for both partners. Egalitarian values were further expressed in new family codes, allowing couples to adopt the surname of either spouse. The patriarchal family, with its hierarchical structure and authoritarian values, came under attack as well.
Soviet policy wished to weaken traditional family structures without encouraging sexual promiscuity. Aleksandra Kollontai however was hoping to establish new moral standards. Sexual liberation in her view was an essential feature of the revolution and a healthy sexuality was a positive attribute of the communist women.
Kollontai’s novels about communism women at this time as  independent women who live in a world where the work collective has replaced the family as a fundamental social unit. A world with androgynous conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Many attacked Kollontai as advocating for sexual promiscuity.
Kollontai felt this was a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of her critic. Kollontai imagined a society where every individual led an independent and self sufficient life, with society as a whole undertaking the support of its less fortunate member through a general insurance fund. No longer would marriage serve as an economic device for women.
Bolshevik leadership, however, made it difficult to criticize undesirable changes within the family while keeping a general approval of sexual liberation. Greater freedom in sex and marriage  could also result in the exploitation and abuse of women and children. The  breakup of extended families as a result of economic pressures and opportunities, the enormous increase in homeless and often delinquent children, the widespread sexual promiscuity, all aspects of new soviet society that people feared were a result of liberal soviet family policies.This was a growing concern within bolshevik circles. As one Zhenotdel journalist complained, free love was being interpreted as free vice.
STALIN AND THE 1930s
“The backwardness of women, their lack of understanding for the revolutionary ideals  of the man, decrease his joy and determination in fighting. They are little worms which, unseen, slowly but surely rot and corrode.”-Stalin. Stalin’s perspective feared that the continuance of the nuclear family could have a disintegrating effect on social change the bolsheviks were working to achieve. Therefore the full integration of women into economic and political life was essential to comprehensive social change. Female mobilization must through a humanitarian and libertarian lens.
This was a popular sentiment in the articles and pamphlets of the female Party activists all over the country. This mindset was not just unique to Stalin, a particular emphasis was placed upon the special backwardness of women. This orientations effect was a shift i moving the discussion further away from the matter of female emancipation instead and emphasize women’s responsibilities rather than their burdens.The liberation of women, stalin was convinced was  their liberation of ignorance, not from oppression. Stalin described women as “enormous army of labour” and emphasized their use as a great economic and political force, as half the population
Another perspective, emphasized the economic advantages of collective child-rearing: “If in the individual family one mother raises 3-5 of her own children, then with communal child rearing one woman on the average will be able to raise 5-10 children of others.”
A third perspective revolved around the problem of social transformation. This orientation support the political enlightenment of women. This extremely important not only for the sake of their own women’s contributions to society but also because of their role as mothers. Working and peasant women were mothers who raise our youth, the future of the country.
These conflicting orientations was most obvious in the debate over sexual liberation and future of the family. The Marxist intellectual tradition so the family as a malleable social construct as opposed to a permanent biological entity. The family was  seen as a form of oppression, since family was the most conservative of all social institution.
Equality within the family was enforced by new legal codes that insisted on identical rights and responsibilities for both partners. Egalitarian values were further expressed in new family codes, allowing couples to adopt the surname of either spouse. The patriarchal family, with its hierarchical structure and authoritarian values, came under attack as well.
Soviet policy wished to weaken traditional family structures without encouraging sexual promiscuity. Aleksandra Kollontai however was hoping to establish new moral standards. Sexual liberation in her view was an essential feature of the revolution and a healthy sexuality was a positive attribute of the communist women.
Kollontai’s novels about communism women at this time as  independent women who live in a world where the work collective has replaced the family as a fundamental social unit. A world with androgynous conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Many attacked Kollontai as advocating for sexual promiscuity.
Kollontai felt this was a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of her critic. Kollontai imagined a society where every individual led an independent and self sufficient life, with society as a whole undertaking the support of its less fortunate member through a general insurance fund. No longer would marriage serve as an economic device for women.
Bolshevik leadership, however, made it difficult to criticize undesirable changes within the family while keeping a general approval of sexual liberation. Greater freedom in sex and marriage  could also result in the exploitation and abuse of women and children. The  breakup of extended families as a result of economic pressures and opportunities, the enormous increase in homeless and often delinquent children, the widespread sexual promiscuity, all aspects of new soviet society that people feared were a result of liberal soviet family policies.This was a growing concern within bolshevik circles. As one Zhenotdel journalist complained, free love was being interpreted as free vice.
WORLD WAR II
The growth of female political participants did not increase women amongst the top levels of political chamber.  The political climate of stalinism was increasingly hierarchical, elitist, authoritarian and competitive and women were generally excluded from holding position of real political power, playing an almost entirely symbolic role ie. Kollontai, Krupskaia and Stasova. All these trends were emphasized during world war 2.
The war years brought more gendered social pressures, sharpening the differences between norms of femininity and masculinity, despite the fact that many women took on male roles during the war. In 1943, The segregation of childhood education was temporarily introduced even though temporary it was further proof of a mindset of more differentiating gender roles. This trend continued in both family law and educational policy, the greater the reliance that will be place on sex segregation in the training of children for these roles.
The Family Edict of July 1944, introduced more severe restrictions on divorce, requiring a two stage legal proceeding and the payment of high fees and It also went further in protecting the sanctity of marriages.The edict created a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, the first time since the revolution. Children’s birth certificates would have blank space for illegitimate children and suits to establish paternity were also banned. Women were given honorary titles and increased incentives for motherhood as well as being offered more protection and security to mothers as compensation for new burdens.