The March issue of Art Line could be described as feminist, even without Solomiya Pavlychko’s article somewhat rhetorically entitled “Is Feminism Possible in Ukraine?” In fact, most of the issue is dedicated to the fair sex. This article, however, is intended as the axis around which most of the other items about women revolve. Characteristically, feminist problems, even if discussed in Ukraine, are mostly rendered in the creative or philosophic context, rather than social practice. In our case belated theorizing is perhaps explained by an attempt to lay the ideological foundations of what is viewed as a practical campaign soon to be launched.
In her article Pavlychko concisely yet rather thoroughly describes the history and most important trends in Western feminism. It is left to be explained, however (at least for this author) is what feminism is all about. What is its main purpose? Struggling for equal social rights with men? Proportional representation of women in politics? The right to actively manifest one’s own sexuality? Obliterating the differences between the sexes? A lesbian-type society? This movement emerged at a time when women were practically nonexistent in active public life, so what is it after now? Even if one considers actual feminist attainments — say, in the United States — one finds a mass of anecdotes. The feminists look for discriminating male chauvinists under their beds. They see the specter everywhere, in traditionally polite manners, especially in obsolete gentlemanly gestures toward women, and (God forbid!) in flirting during office hours. Snares for male chauvinists are everywhere, ranging from professional discrimination to sexual harassment to restricted human rights. But perhaps all this looks funny only to some of the patriarchal stronger half?
I tried to somehow grasp the deep essence of feminism and it occurred to me that the movement is a kind of atheism. Not the “scientific” stuff fed us from the Marxist arsenal, but the highly intellectual secular Weltanschauung which regards Christianity as a philosophical theory rather than a moral imperative based on a system of permissions, prohibitions, and mysteries.
Getting back to Ms. Pavlychko, what does she have in mind exactly, championing the feminist idea so consistently, in almost every article she writes? Is it really women’s equality, liberties, stuff like that? Hard to believe. She is a Ph.D., author of five books, a self-made woman. Why her feminist obsession? She is trying to build an image that simply does not fit into the revolutionizing pattern of marginalia. I think that both her “Discourse on Modernism in Ukrainian Literature” and brilliant essay series are permeated with a quest for a “real man” among the Ukrainian classics. Not even like D. H. Lawrence with his famous novel (in Ms. Pavlychko’s excellent translation), rather like Lady Chatterley’s lover. Regrettably, this quest seems to be abortive and disappointing. Wherever one turns one sees nothing but frayed nerves and ideas, self-indulgence, fixation, and (begging the ladies’ pardon) feminization. And all this against the background of rather unconvincing creative accomplishment. One is reminded of Ivan Franko’s cowardly remark that Lesia Ukrainka was “perhaps the only man in all of today’s Ukraine” (in our time the same could be said perhaps about Oksana Zabuzhko) and tempted to defend other courageous women writers underestimated by their male counterparts, and ponder the inability of our literati to show that masculine spark.
It should be pointed out, however, that searching for a real man in the literary community is a difficult and thankless task, and an a priori abortive one, because real men prefer to do something other than play games with words. What do they prefer? Politics? Business? Sports? Robbing fellow humans? Finding an answer seems almost the quintessence of feminism. If and when they discover the habitat of men of the caliber of Lady Chatterley’s lover the feminist movement will become history, like so many things that come to pass.
While this number was in preparation Solomiya Pavlychko sent here response to Izdryk’s column, which initially appeared in Den on May 19. Read it in the next issue. Your comments on this and other issues are also always welcome.






