Sexism vs. feminism through the mirror of media and advertising
In September 2017, the oldest independent Belarusian newspaper, Naša Niva, launched Naša Nina – a new spin-off project designed exclusively for women. With topics ranging from women’s rights in childbirth to celebrity news, it aspires to offer a unique and modern product on the market of gender-oriented media in Belarus.
Yet critics point out that the new project supports a conservative vision of women in society. Its narrow focus on love life, family, entertainment, and beauty trends indicates a possible fear of being labeled as feminist media.
The majority of Belarusians still see feminism as a radical and marginalised movement, not least because gender stereotypes, patriarchal mentality, and sexism still dominate Belarusian media and advertising.
Our Nina – a modern product for women?
Naša Niva launched its daughter project, Naša Nina (“Our Nina”), in 2017. The project is an attempt to attract more female Belarusians, as its own statistics showed that majority of its readers (nearly 65 per cent) were male. It advertised the offspring project as a media outlet for Belarusian women available exclusively in the Belarusian language. Yet Nina—a popular name that rhymes with the newspaper’s title—took her first steps on shaky grounds.
Positioning itself as a modern website for women, Naša Nina announced it would cover all topics that interest female readers. How the newspaper interprets female interests becomes evident from the major sections on its new website: love, family, home, lifestyle, self-development, and celebrity news. At the same time, the editors consciously omitted covering politics and economics, explaining that these sections were already available in the main website of the newspaper.
The editor-in-chief of Naša Niva, Yahor Marcinovich, has recently shared some of his views on content priorities. Marcinovich stated the major aim of the newspaper was to popularise Belarusian language for the masses. As Marcinovich admitted, articles from the section Love and Sex were in highest demand. For this reason, the oldest Belarusian newspaper started drifting in the direction of popular consumption.
Critics of Naša Nina’s launch immediately branded it as a product spreading gender stereotypes. Lifestyle, entertainment, love, and family do not belong exclusively to the female domain and generally interest all readers, male and female likewise. As Tacciana Siacko noted on budzma.by, a website that promotes Belarusian cultural initiatives, the differing range of sections and topics create a context of gender-oriented media with discriminative practices and a conservative mainstream vision of women.
Sex still sells Belarusian business
Currently, global PR trends indicate the increased usage of feminist themes in advertising. It appears the trend has yet to arrive in Belarus. Belarusian businesses are still using women’s bodies to extract profits. In Belarus, gender stereotypes still go hand-in-hand with aggressive marketing campaigns, from lingerie and clothing to drinking water and finding cheap flights.
In July 2017, vandrouki.by, a travel deals website, published an ad on Facebook with following wording: “[prices] as small as your ex-girlfriend’s breasts, but honest deals: $8.5 to book any flight or $25.5 for hotel bookings.” Social network users reacted with outrage and the post was deleted. Later, the editor of vandrouki.by Andrei Miranchuk explained that the post was a “social experiment” that his friends were conducting, yet he did not provide any further details and did not express any regrets in conducting his “experiment.”
Clothing company Mark Formelle has produced some of the most scandalous examples of sexism, designing lingerie ads with erotic contexts. Belarusian feminists from the Center for the Protection of Women’s Rights—Her Rights interpreted the ads as offensive and submitted a formal complaint to the company.
Yet instead of apologising, Mark Formelle accused the NGO of self-promotion at the company’s expense and in February 2017 responded with a video, where half-naked, athletic men were sewing bras and panties. Apparently, the company failed to see any irony in multiplying sexist contexts.
“Without signs of feminism on the face”
At the same time, a negative image of feminism is omnipresent in public discourse. In July 2016, an HR company from Minsk was seeking to hire a real estate company representative to deal with luxury properties. The job description included detailed requirements as to the appearance and age of the potential employee, who had to be a young girl “with a nice, Slavic smile” and “without any signs of feminism on the face.”
This rejection of feminism has historical roots. In the 1960s, Belarusian Soviet society ignored the second wave of feminism, with its focus on social and cultural inequalities, reproductive rights and exploitation of sexuality. In the 1990s, the fall of the USSR and the ensuing economic crisis disadvantaged Belarusian women, forcing them into more traditional roles. Contemporary Belarusian feminism took shape in reaction to women’s diminished position in post-Soviet society. At present, feminism is still struggling to establish itself as a social movement and a value system.
The majority of Belarusians equate feminism to a swearword or a kind of stigma, even though Belarusian laws guarantee gender equality, with women represented in government, state bureaucracy, and business. Very few Belarusian women openly identify as feminists: about 4 per cent according to a 2012 NewsEffect survey on feminism in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine—the lowest percentage among the three countries.
Even professionally successful Belarusian women do not openly support feminism. The news website TUT.BY organises the annual Lady Boss contest, which popularises stories of women pursuing careers in business and management. In 2017, contest participants did not speak favourably of feminism. Volha Grynkevich, co-founder of a custom framing business, said, “No, I am not a feminist and I consider being a feminist wrong. It weakens men.” Alla Kashkan, founder of a furnace repair and installation company, said, “No, I am not a feminist. I do not relate to it. You have to let others take care of you.”
These examples show a lack of familiarity with the feminist movement and its contributions to the protection of women’s rights, despite the fact that 20 years ago Belarus pioneered gender studies in the post-Soviet region. The first academic Center for Gender Studies opened at the European Humanities University (EHU) in 1997, launching its unique MA program in Gender Theory in 2000. Yet since 2005, the Center works in Lithuanian exile, where the university was forced to move after the authorities closed its Minsk location.
Currently, the number of initiatives supporting feminist causes in Belarus remains extremely low. Only 1 per cent of all NGOs are feminist organisations. Online platforms such as gender-route.org or makeout.by contribute to gender education, yet do not have enough potential to reach out to the wider public and fight the demonisation of feminism, which is rampant in media and advertising. Belarusian society still has a long way to bring forward discussions on global issues that relate to women, such as inequality, the distribution of power, and women’s rights.
Homeownership in Belarus: an unaffordable dream
On 3 October, at a meeting to discuss the drafting of a new housing code, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka said that helping citizens to improve their housing conditions with the help from plumber perth will remain a key priority.
However, while the state has achieved some success in helping the most vulnerable groups, the majority of the population cannot afford an apartment or have to queue for social housing for decades.
High interest rates for loans, the absence of mortgage schemes, not following individual voluntary arrangement and low salaries make homeownership an unattainable dream for many young Belarusians.
Meanwhile, receiving public housing in rural areas may be easy (and even free), but few people agree to do so, because there is a trade-off. It requires working for a state-dominated agricultural industry that many Belarusians consider backward.
The decay of Lukashenka’s social housing era
State aid to acquire private homes has long been a major electoral slogan for president Lukashenka. The state, indeed, built a large amount of housing and kept prices below market levels for low income earners for the past decade. Jungles of social apartment blocks, in areas like Kamiennaja Horka, have become a cultural meme among the Minsk population.
However, after the financial crisis of 2011, the construction boom and accompanying social housing programmes are beginning to trail off. Since 2007, the annual output of new housing space averaged about 5 million square metres. In 2017, the total area of new housing will be only half that.
Exchange rates are also having an effect. The value of the Belarusian rouble to the dollar has fallen seven times since 2011. This has undermined Belarusians’ ability to buy housing. The rate of the average Minsk salary to a square metre of housing in the city centre is now 1:4. For comparison, in Warsaw, Prague and Berlin, the difference averages about 1:2 or 1:3.
International financial institutions also demand that the state reduces its subsidisation of the housing sector as a pre-condition for loan talks. The government has chosen to relent to these demands.
Help for vulnerable groups, but not others
The state indeed achieved a certain amount of success in providing housing to Belarus’s most vulnerable citizens. Large families (defined as having three or more children) and orphans can get a home loan at the lowest possible interest rate of 1 per cent. Inhabitants of rural areas and towns with populations below 20,000 enjoy a 3 per cent loan interest rate. A 5 per cent rate is applied to a wide range of groups, including military servicemen, young families with two children, victims of the Chernobyl disaster, families with disabled children, war veterans, and others.
In July 2017, the government introduced a new financial instrument to support vulnerable social groups—targeted subsidies for home purchasing. The subsidy covers either part or the majority of a loan that a family takes from a bank. Taking into account the rate of annual inflation of 10 per cent, the policies for vulnerable groups offer real and generous help from the state.
For the rest of population, however, banks offer only commercial interest rates of 14-15 per cent and for a maximum 12 years. Mortgage mechanisms are still unavailable in Belarus, and an average citizen cannot take a loan for 20-40 years. Meanwhile, mortgage interest rates in EU countries do not usually exceed 2-3 per cent and a buyer can take a loan lasting 40 years.
Citizens that can be classified as “needing an improvement of their home conditions” can also enjoy a discount, which can as much as halve the market price. However, the queue for getting this discount has become legendary. In Minsk, the people who joined the queue in 1989 are only now receiving discounts on apartments. In regional centres, the situation is better, but people still have to wait many years.
Thus, the government has so far failed to provide affordable housing to the majority of the population, focusing only on those most in need. Owning a flat remains an unattainable dream for most young people, especially those living in the capital.
Due to the rapid growth of construction in the recent decade, almost no free land for housing remains in Minsk. The queue for social housing stands at 208,000 families. President Lukashenka has repeatedly demanded the slowdown residential construction in Minsk. The president instead advocates the development of satellite towns nearby the city.
However, developers see this option as unprofitable. Satellite towns require large investments to build utilities, while the demand for apartments in these areas is not guaranteed. No wonder—few people would agree to move 20 km away to the towns, which often feature poor facilities.
Therefore, construction in Minsk continues mainly through the demolition of old individual houses and industrial plants. This policy has repeatedly sparked social tensions and protests. Citizens leave their inherited private houses and old areas very unwillingly. Sometimes the protests can turn into vast social campaigns, as was in the case of Asmaloŭka area.
The lack of kindergartens also remains a crucial problem for Minsk. The capital remains a hub for the migration of young people from all over the republic. Minsk has the largest population of children in the counrty. In some districts, the kindergartens are overloaded by 60 per cent.
The authorities created special daily bus tours for transporting children and their parents from the overloaded districts, but parents complain that this takes a lot of their time. Encouraging private kindergartens or other forms of childcare, as well as raising fees for parents and salaries of the staff could definitely improve the situation. But the authorities do not dare to give in to one of the last features of the decaying “socially oriented state.”
Rural Belarus – chance for a Renaissance?
In the early 2000s the government invented a new approach to resurrecting Belarus’s deserted rural regions. Planners launched the 2005-2010 State Programme for Rural Revival and Development. The programme set out the concept of agro-towns. These are rural settlements with a high level of industrial and social infrastructure and amenities. Areas tagged for agro-town developments were to feature communal utilities, roads, housing, communication and transport, education and medical care facilities.
The programme was aimed at attracting young specialists with families. It granted free housing to those who agreed to be employed at unpopular agricultural collective farms. As a result, 1500 agro-towns sprouted up in Belarus.
Nevertheless, the rural population continues to fall. Rural communities now account for 22.1 per cent of Belarus’s population. While the idea of agro-towns appeared attractive at first, it did not resolve the main problem for rural areas—economic unattractiveness, stemming from the state’s monopoly over farming and Soviet-style management techniques.
The government is now trying to create additional incentives for moving to the rural areas. A new, “revolutionary” law on business liberalisation may come into effect in the coming months. However, as long as the state remains the dominant owner of the agricultural industry, the people are unlikely to return to the land. No infrastructure or housing projects will bear fruit unless people can feel themselves owners of their farms and freely sell their production.