gender equality (egalitarian)- The feminist interpretation of equality assumes that men and women should have equal shares in social power, equal access to public resources. gender equality is not the identity of the sexes, the identity of their signs, characteristics. To speak of identity does not allow, at least, a different role in reproduction.

Term egalitarianism(V this case synonym for the term gender equality) has undergone at least four stages of transformation. The idea of ​​absolute equality between people as a model of a socially just society was primary. Historical development has shown that such a concept is utopian. And if "societies of equals" existed, then this equality was achieved with a general decrease in the social status of its members within the framework of an arbitrary distribution system at the cost of losing the individuality of the individual, the so-called "equality in lack of freedom", equality at a low level of human development, equality in meeting the minimum needs when suppressing the desire to expand the circle of needs and destroy bright personalities in society. Ideas like " equalization"Women and men also have sad examples of implementation. The involvement of women in heavy types of labor, the "double burden" of the burden on women, the appearance of "straw" orphans - abandoned children (when in the young and middle-aged Soviet Republic children were handed over to a nursery from the first months of their lives ) And the most remarkable thing is the massive attempt by women to break their female identity by accepting male behavior and male rules of the game for equality with men. And this despite the fact that equality in pay for men and women has not yet come. Equality, therefore, was interpreted as an adjustment to the male type of character, type of profession, type of lifestyle, which led to ridiculous results due to the existing difference between men and women.

The second step in understanding the term equality there was an awareness of the need for equal rights for all citizens of a democratic society. The implementation of this undoubtedly progressive principle of social development has shown its inconsistency and weakness in terms of exercising the rights of individual marginal(cm. Marginality) groups (women, national minorities, etc.).

Hence the emergence of the third stage of the interpretation of egalitarianism in social development. The equality of the rights of citizens was now commensurate with the equality of opportunities for the exercise of these rights. Appear concepts positive discrimination and equal start. Where there is (gender) discrimination in society, equal rights do not provide equal opportunities for the discriminated group (women). The system of privileges for such a group makes it possible to "equalize the chances", to provide an equal start to discriminated and non-discriminated groups. The creation and implementation of such a system is called positive discrimination.

In the development of the concept equality feminists have made significant contributions at every stage in the development of the term. However, the feeling of "understatement" in the concept of equality in terms of building a society free from gender discrimination is also present in the latest interpretation of egalitarianism. We continue to operate within the framework of a "male" society, in which women are adjusted to the standard (norm) of male character traits, areas of activity, and professions. "Male" norms are present both in the patterns of leadership and management, and in the patterns of most of the things and objects around us, designed for the average male person.

The fourth stage in the development of the concept egalitarianism should be recognized equality of self-worth, self-perceptions, self-identification of men and women along with observance of equality of rights of men and women. The self-worth of women (an abnormal group from the point of view of a patriarchal society) must be recognized by society. This will remove the problem of the hierarchy of differences between men and women. Valuable and "male" and "female" character traits, areas of activity. Everyone is valuable: mothers, wives, fathers, husbands, workers and workers, nurses and doctors, etc. The value of a person belonging to a certain social group must be recognized not only in declared slogans, but also be evaluated by a real social measure - payment for this or that work of individuals of this or that quality. For example, the problem occupational segregation based on sex should be solved not by (or not only by) the introduction of women into previously "unexplored" professions, but also through an adequate, equivalent recognition of "female" professions and "female" areas of activity. With this approach, there is no need for a system of preferential treatment for certain social groups, for concern for equality of opportunity.

This is a difficult path for the development of society, but the primitivization of social relations has so far brought only disappointment to humanity. Of course, "the laws created by people must ... be preceded by the possibility fair relations"(Montesquieu). Today, the questions remain open: "What are the criteria for the possibility of implementing egalitarianism in the sense of equality in the intrinsic value of women and men? What stage in the development of society corresponds to the establishment of gender self-value - its economic prosperity or social maturity? What type of social development - democratic or hierarchical structures? Will this process be accelerated by the presence of critical, force majeure factors - environmental, political, national crises, wars? Which factor will have an overwhelming influence - socio-cultural or national (historical tendency to egalitarianism of this kind)?

One thing is clear: the understanding of egalitarianism as an inherent value of a person with its "male" or "female" character traits, its inherent areas of activity is a step forward in building an egalitarian society on a new round of development.

In conclusion - a diagram of the stages in the development of understanding the essence of egalitarianism:
equality > equality of rights > equality of rights and equality of opportunities > equality of rights and equality of intrinsic value, self-identification.

sex equality (English)

Literature:

Kalabikhina IE Social gender: economic and demographic behavior. Moscow, 1981.
Starikov E. Society-barracks: from the pharaohs to the present day. Novosibirsk, 1996.
gender-based analysis. Canada, 1996:
Tuttle L. Encyclopedia of feminism. New York, Oxford, 1986.

I. E. Kalabikhina

Global Gender Gap Report 2014, which explores the disparities between men and women in health, education, economics and politics. Apparat studied the report and selected the most Interesting Facts.

1. There is no country in the world where women earn as much as men.

Although women have gained many rights over the past century in many countries, gender inequality remains a problem even in the most developed of them. There is not a single state on the planet where women and men in similar positions receive the same salary. “Women make up about half of the world's population and deserve to have the same access to health care, education, earnings, influence and political rights as men,” write the authors of the World Economic Forum report.

2. Closest to gender equality are the Nordic countries

The first place among the countries that are most successful in fighting inequality is occupied by Iceland. The top five also includes other developed countries of Northern Europe: Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. There, the gap between different sexes has been overcome by 80% - perhaps this is due to the developed innovative economy and the high standard of living in these countries.

3. Nicaragua and Rwanda are better at tackling inequality than many developed countries

Sixth place in the ranking unexpectedly takes Nicaragua. A small and poor country in Central America has overtaken the US, UK and other countries of the developed world because it has a lot of women who receive higher education, are engaged in professional work and participate in government. Right after Nicaragua comes Rwanda - she received a high rating, since there are more women than men in the local parliament.

4. Russia is far from defeating gender inequality, mainly because of politics

Russia ranks 75th in the ranking. This is largely due to indicators reflecting the involvement of women in the political life of the country. According to analysts, only 16% Russian parliamentarians and 7% of government officials are women. In addition, the income gap between men and women contributed to the low ranking.

5. The US also lacks female politicians.

Women have more advantages in America than in many other countries: the US has achieved gender equality in education and almost equal access to health care. However, one of the most powerful countries in the world is only 20th in the World Economic Forum rankings. The reason that is dragging America down is the lack of female politicians. The situation in the USA is better than in Russia (18% of parliamentarians and 32% of officials are women), but there is no talk of equality yet.

6. Chad, Pakistan and Yemen are the countries with the highest levels of discrimination

One of the last places in the ranking is Chad, where few women have the opportunity to get higher education and almost all managers, lawyers and officials are men. Pakistan came in penultimate due to large disparities between men and women in the economic sphere, while Yemen came in last due to the gap in earnings, as well as disparities in education and politics.

7. The situation in the world has improved over the past nine years, and changes are happening in the most unexpected regions.

The World Economic Forum began publishing statistics in 2006 - since then, the compilers of the report regularly poll CEOs of companies from around the world about the size wages their subordinates and measure other indicators that reflect the position of women in society. Change is happening very slowly: in nine years, the situation of women as a whole on the planet has improved by only 4%. However, research shows that most countries in the world are moving in the right direction. Positive dynamics is noticeable in 105 of the 142 countries included in the report. At the same time, the situation is improving not only in developed countries.

8. It will take 81 years to completely eliminate gender inequality

If the fight against inequality continues at the same pace as in the past eight years, then, according to the World Economic Forum, humanity will be able to defeat discrimination against women only by the end of the 21st century.

Interactive map showing the position of women in the world

Map not working on some mobile devices

Incredible Facts

"No society treats women the same as men." This was the conclusion of the United Nations Development Program in 1997.

More than 60 years ago, in 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated that everyone, regardless of gender, is entitled to the same freedoms. However, the 1997 Human Development Report suggests that no nation is succeeding in achieving this goal.

Moreover, the level of "failure" in each country is different, but still the countries of Northern Europe, such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland, are states in which the level of gender inequality is the lowest.

In developing countries, however, women often face injustices that are sometimes difficult to understand.

In this article, we will take a trip around the world to explore 10 examples of gender inequality.

Professional obstacles

Women have been fighting for decades to take their place in the workplace on par with men, and the fight is not over yet. According to the most recent US Census statistics, women earn only 77 percent of what men earn for the same amount of work. In addition to this gender pay gap, it is very rare to find women in leadership positions in large companies. The women who went to maternity leave, were often unable to re-enter the workplace because they faced discrimination or outdated ideas that a woman can no longer achieve anything if she becomes pregnant and becomes a mother.

It is also worth noting that traditional female jobs such as teaching and childcare are among the lowest paid jobs. Still, working women have one advantage over other women from some countries, who are even forbidden to leave the house.

Limited mobility

Saudi Arabia is the most prominent example of restricted female mobility, where women are not allowed to drive or cycle on public roads. Strict Islamic laws in the country forbid women from leaving their homes without their husband's permission, as this could potentially lead them into contact with unfamiliar men.

Although Saudi Arabia is the only country that bans women from driving, in some other countries, for example, women have restrictions on leaving the state, and even women in developed countries can complain of limited mobility. Although these women have the legal right to drive or fly, they themselves prefer not to leave their homes in the evening because of the risk of rape or assault.

Violence

In 2008, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reported that one in three women in the world had been beaten, raped or subjected to other forms of violence in their lifetime. In both developed and developing countries, violence against women in the form of rape, abuse or even murder is such a daily routine that such events are rarely covered in the media. In conflict zones, the rape of women and children is often used as a weapon of war.

In some countries, marital violence is not even considered a crime, while in other states there are laws that require the presence of a certain number of male witnesses in order for the court to admit that the fact of rape really took place. Even in developed countries, women's testimony about rape is often questioned. Because of the stigma of reporting any form of violence, we will never know the extent of the problem.

Abortion and infanticide

You can often hear from future parents that it doesn’t matter to them who is born to them, a boy or a girl, the main thing is that the child is healthy. In some countries, such as China and India, a male child is more valued than a girl, so this prejudice causes parents to express extreme concern about who will be born to them. Thanks to advances in genetic testing, parents can find out who will be born to them, and if they do not receive advance notice they can legally kill a child. As a result, sex ratios are skewed in some countries, for example, in India in 2001 there were 927 girls for every 1,000 boys. Female fetuses and newborn girls who are killed are sometimes called "missing women" in the world.

Limited right to property

In some countries, such as Chile and Lesotho, women do not have rights to own land. All documents include only male names, be it the woman's father or husband. If one of these men dies, then the woman has no legal rights to the land on which she has lived and worked all her life. Often widows are left homeless as the family of her deceased husband kicks them out of their homes. Therefore, many women were in "dangerous" marriages, because they could lose their homes.

Such restrictions on rights are especially acute in rural areas, where the main and dominant type of activity is Agriculture. Women could spend their entire lives cultivating and harvesting crops just for the right to live on this land, which they forfeited as well as social security if a father or husband died or left.

The Feminization of Poverty

As mentioned above, women in some countries do not have rights to own the land they work or live on. In addition to the fact that women "entitled" to such rights are not only subjected to marital violence, this phenomenon also belongs to the phenomenon that economists call "the feminization of poverty." More than 1.5 billion people in the world live on less than one dollar a day, and most of these people are women.

The United Nations often cites statistics that women do two-thirds of the world's work, earn 10 percent of the world's income, and own just 1 percent of the means of production. Women may be left without the means of production, as we discussed above when we talked about the deprivation of her rights to land, but the failure to assert her right to land perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty. Consider the case where a woman has to manage the farm herself. Land is a major factor in securing secure lending from financial associations or cooperatives, which in turn means that a woman cannot qualify for loans that would allow her family to expand their business. Without financial support, women cannot upgrade equipment, expand production, or keep up with competing farmers. Many women entrepreneurs were left with nothing and lived in poverty due to limited access to basic legal rights.

Access to healthcare

In many countries, pregnant women can go to any hospital, confident that they will receive care. However, this luxury seems to be reserved only for women in developed countries. According to World Organization health care, one woman dies in childbirth every minute. That's more than 500,000 deaths a year, many of which could have been prevented if women were allowed to leave their homes when they needed treatment and if they were delivered by skilled professionals.

Childbirth is just one example of women gaining unequal access to healthcare. Another example is the increase in the number of women infected with HIV/AIDS. For many years, men accounted for the bulk of new infections, but in Africa women now account for half of those infected. One reason for this increase could be laws that force women to stay married even if their husbands regularly have side ties that could bring the virus into the marriage.

Freedom to marry and divorce

In the US, love (and the lack of it) is the main theme of romantic comedies or cocktail conversations. In other countries, love is not discussed at all when it comes to marriage. In many states, young girls are forced to marry men who are twice or even three times their age. According to UNICEF, more than one third of married women aged 20-24 were married before the age of 18, the minimum age for marriage in most countries. Thus, child brides are the birth of children at an early age, which increases the likelihood of complications during childbirth and the risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.

When a woman wants to marry without love, her options are limited in many countries. In some states, courts automatically grant custody of children to fathers, and often prevent women from receiving any form of financial support. However, in countries like Egypt, women don't even have the right to sue. While men are given a divorce immediately after verbally relinquishing their wife, women face obstacles over the years to get a divorce. For this reason, many women around the world live in doomed marriages for years.

Participation in political life

Analysts often argue that many of the issues highlighted in this list could be addressed if women had higher levels of political participation. Even though women make up half of the world's population, they hold only 15.6 per cent of parliamentary seats around the world. The absence of women can be traced at all levels of government - local, regional and national. But why is it so important that women take part in politics? Studies that examined women in leadership positions in Bolivia, Cameroon, and Malaysia found that when women were able to participate in setting priority spending items, they were more likely to invest in families, community resources, health care, education, and poverty eradication than men. who are more likely to invest in the military industry. Some countries have experimented with quota systems to increase the number of women in politics, although these systems often criticize women in politics simply because they are women, regardless of their qualifications.

Access to education

Most of the children who are not currently in school are girls. And two-thirds of the world's illiterate people are also women. When it comes to women's education, it is not always available, because in developing countries girls are often taken out of school to help with household chores, and fathers can also take them out of school if they think it's time to give them in marriage , or the family has too little money to educate two children and therefore preference is given to a boy.

This gap in educational attainment becomes even more depressing when studies show that girls' education is key factor in the eradication of poverty and the promotion of personal development. Girls who complete school are less likely to marry at an early age, more likely to have a family with fewer children, and be healthier. These women also earn more and invest in their families, thus ensuring that their daughters receive an education. In fact, addressing educational disparities can help address many of the other problems on this list.

There is an old and very vital anecdote: "A woman only becomes equal to a man when she can walk down the street, bald, drunk, with a beer belly and at the same time completely confident in her irresistibility."

Our generation is accustomed to hearing that all people must necessarily be equal. But if we abandon the stereotype of the 20th century and try to look at it with an open mind, the question can easily arise: should a woman be equal to a man? The difference that exists between the sexes is completely natural, we have a different life purpose.

Equality between the sexes does not exist in nature and therefore it is pointless to fight for it. Yes, according to the Constitution, all people are equal, but political rights are completely different. All of us, both men and women, have the right to go to the polls and solemnly cast our votes for the candidate we like. We all have the right to receive a pension after reaching a certain number of years, to live where we like. But the benefits that the Constitution gives do not turn a woman into a man.

All previous centuries the woman remained the woman. She was a mother, took care of the house and family, and this is a huge job and responsibility. It is not for nothing that modern women want to avoid it, because it is easier to do some specific work in production every day for eight hours than to work in your home and in your family from morning until late at night. A woman-housewife has no days off, no holidays, she is busy at least 12 hours a day, and busy in such a way that no working man could ever dream of. He worked this out, came and lay down on the sofa, and the housewife had no time to lie down. Precisely because domestic work was quite serious and difficult, all previous centuries there was a clear division: the man supported the family, protected, guarded, earned money, and the woman had the opportunity to perform her female labor in the family. The woman did not grumble, because she was kept, she was taken care of, she could take care of her children and household chores, without being distracted by anything else.

Now, thanks to emancipation, we all have become, as it were, equal, we all have the right to do the same thing, but in reality it turns out that a woman "has the right" to do men's work (earn money, protect, protect), and at the same time she must serve the family. In other words, she does everything that she did in previous centuries, plus the work that was imposed on her by the so-called equality. But in fact, there are no positive fruits from such equality.

Someone can object to me and say: a woman now has the right to be president. But were there few queens and princesses in the past who ruled over their peoples? By the way, there are many more reigning queens in history than female presidents. For example, in such world powers as the USSR-Russia or the USA, women presidents or general secretaries, there was none. In the "age of equality" men still remain in power.

A modern woman is full of illusions that she is free, and declares that only in our time she can be anyone: “If I want, I will be a socialite, if I want, I will be a miner,” as one of my opponents wrote to me. But in reality, she, this modern woman, can no longer be either one or the other. She doesn’t have enough strength for a miner, she doesn’t have enough education for a socialite. A woman is only engaged in self-deception, because for the last one and a half centuries she has been taught that she must fight "for the right to choose."

Such phrases seem to me some strange infantilism. I remember the old Soviet film "Girls", where one girl who grew up in an orphanage enters adulthood and declares: "Now I do whatever I want: I want to eat halva, I want gingerbread." Now such infantilism is present in the vast majority of adults. So they were brought up throughout the 20th century, developing in both women and men the illusion that now they have more choice than they used to. In fact, a woman could be worked at any time: female miners existed in the 18th century, for example, in England. Only then did they become miners out of bitter need, if none of the men could provide them and their children with a decent existence. The only difference between our time and all previous eras is that now being only a housewife for a woman has become "not prestigious" and even humiliating. The word "housewife" has become synonymous with "loser". A man no longer wants to support a woman, but he himself strives to settle down so that someone supports him. In this situation, a woman has to take on a man's work. N.S. Back in 1870, Leskov, in his novel "On the Knives", wrote: "... the significance of a woman in the so-called "our age" is hardly exalted by the fact that she, a demoted queen, was allowed to be a worker!" But now it is considered an achievement.

So, women defended their "right to work", no matter how absurd it may sound. Now they can add to their domestic work also work in some factory. But even this freedom was not enough. What else can a modern woman fight for? For abortion, for example. That is, for the right of a woman not to be a woman and to kill her unborn children. Or you can fight for a woman's right to have plastic surgery and create the illusion that she is a man (by the way, men are now also actively fighting for the right not to be men). All this is the result of modern education. If in the 19th century a woman was the fair sex, now, constantly comparing her with a man, society leads her to the fact that she is some kind of subhuman. From the fair sex, she turned into something despised. From the plus sign, she immediately went to the minus sign, and therefore some unreasonable girls want to change gender in order to "correspond to the title of a person." If they wanted something like that in the 19th century, they would have been considered crazy. And now they are not crazy, they are a product of the modern mentality. As a result, with the progression of "equality", the whole society began to treat a woman with disdain, ceased to respect her women's domestic work, ceased to respect a mother in a woman. Disrespect for motherhood began along with universal labor service, when a woman had to go to work, worked up to seven months of pregnancy, and was released from work only for two last months. Maternity leave was very small: 56 days before childbirth and 56 days after, so that the woman could be involved in production to the maximum. Only in the 1980s did Soviet women receive the right to additional parental leave until the child reaches the age of one and a half years. The woman was obliged to throw the child into some kind of nursery and return to production, otherwise she would lose her experience, and sometimes the job itself. Such disrespect for motherhood lasted almost the entire 20th century. And a modern woman, remaining a woman, feels like a subhuman, unless she has made a career for herself, because family and children are not a career at all. Back in the 19th century, she was proud of herself; in front of a woman, a man took off his hat. Who will take their hats off to her now?

A modern woman is perhaps more humiliated than a concubine in a harem. In the harem, the wives of some sultan lived, dressed in silks and jewels, in bliss and contentment, well-fed and fat. If someone tried to show disrespect to the Sultan's wife, he would immediately end up on a stake or on a chopping block. Just disrespect is a sign of modernity, when a woman can be pushed, beaten, pushed away from the tram in order to slip by herself, scold, push her away from her seat and sit down herself. This is absolutely incredible behavior for the 19th century or previous centuries, because then only scoundrels behaved like that with women. But now it is normal and women are sometimes even proud of it. I remember how one of my acquaintances sincerely said that she was proud that they did not give her a seat in transport, because for her this indicates that she is "considered normal person". Such a perverted concept of pride is characteristic of a modern woman.

Man and woman cannot be equal. Everyone has their own job. A woman should not do a man's work, a man will not give birth to children. There are features of gender that are given to a person; there is no point in trying to change this.

It may be objected to me that although in the 19th century there were some sections of the population in which women were engaged only in domestic work (the majority of city dwellers, for example), but among rural residents, who are in the majority in any country, a woman is forced to participate in agricultural work. But the peasantry was also very different. There were good owners who did not drive their women out into the field. But among the peasant lower classes - bad owners, drunkards, loafers who cannot or do not want to organize work correctly - among such peasants, women were forced to work on harder agricultural work. In a normal family, while a man is in the field, a woman must cook dinner for him, otherwise he will remain hungry. The whole point is that there should be a division of labor. If a man is not able to manage the household, if he cannot organize it in such a way that there is a division of labor, then his family will not be complete. How will a woman give birth and raise children if she is forced to plow in the field? The fate of the wife from the film "The Settlers" (dir. Jan Truel, Sweden, 1972) awaits her, where the head of the family, who did not have his own household in Sweden, decided to radically change his life and took the whole family to America. But in America, he is just as unable to create a good economy, or does not want to change anything in the way of life to which he is accustomed. His wife works on a par with him, continuing to give birth to children, overstrains and dies prematurely. Even on a fertile, grateful land, where one can live much better, a person cannot organize a proper division of labor - and as a result, he ruins a woman as a being weaker and unsuitable for double loads.

A normal peasant family will not expel a woman for agricultural work, because she has enough household chores. What fist will drive his wife into the field? He would rather have his wife prepare food for him, sew new clothes kept the house and children in order. But why is it in the peasant environment that we often see such a phenomenon as a woman doing hard field work? A man of more affluent classes traditionally married an adult when he had already received a good position or organized his own business, acquired a stable position in society that would guarantee his family good life. But in the peasant tradition, marriage was performed in a completely different way. When the boy was 12-13 years old, pants were sewn for him - and he was considered a groom, the girl had her first menstruation - she was already a bride. Such teenagers were immediately married and how this boy would grow up as a husband and owner - no one knew: maybe a hard worker, or maybe a drunkard. The result of this tradition a large percentage negligent owners in the village who cannot adequately support their families and the whole burden of work in such families falls on women's shoulders. In other classes, a woman will work only if she has lost her breadwinner.

Let's go back to the 20th century. With a general leveling, various problems arise. As long as a woman remains a mother and guardian of the family hearth, raises children, and a man works, everything is fine. Of course, there are and have been a lot of men who cannot support a family, and yet strive to create one. Nothing good happens in this case. Now you see this very often. A man cannot or does not want to provide for his family. In this situation, a woman is forced to work, and work very hard. And a woman learns from her own and other people's mistakes and thinks: “Why do I need this? Why do I need a family when I have to drag my husband and children on me, and plus, I also have to work several jobs to feed them all?” As a result, the modern family, created on the basis of gender equality, becomes very short-lived. According to Demoscope, there were 529 registered divorces per 1,000 registered marriages in 2012. Every third child is born out of wedlock. The family is no longer needed, and because of this, the whole society is falling apart.

What is the root of trouble? Some say: "Women are to blame, they have taken all the leadership positions." In fact, we see that in previous centuries there were much more empresses than there are current women presidents, and in this our equality is by no means progressing, but it is progressing in another way - a man is increasingly too lazy to support his family and he puts on a woman, in addition to her own, also his duties . The family for a woman becomes meaningless and very difficult, and therefore she increasingly refuses it. The man has ceased to fulfill his function as the head of the family, the person who must support his wife and children and ensure the division of labor. He no longer wants to "get bread by the sweat of his brow" - and the woman herself has to get it, because bread is needed, and there is no one else to get it.

A man now often does not start a family, because he does not want to bear even a small responsibility for it. He likes promiscuous relationships much more, he strives to settle down so that the woman supports him. But such men were at all times, and simply did not marry. And society condemned them. And now, with "equality" such behavior seems to be normal.

Since a man, according to his physiological characteristics, still needs a woman, he will strive for sex, but at the same time strive to avoid responsibility for the family. This desire is reflected in contemporary art (film, books, music) and media. mass media. A woman is diligently instilled in every possible way that she needs sex and that the family exists only to satisfy the physiological need for sex, and not at all for procreation. A full-fledged, real family is a thing of the past, a child, if he is still born, will be forced to raise and educate one mother, and this is hard and expensive. Hence the desire of women to have abortions. Increasingly, in the relationship between men and women, sex is put in the first place. A woman is told: this is necessary “for health”, “in order to be a full-fledged woman”, “so that her friends do not look like a loser”, “so that everyone respects” ... And a woman, as a creature who tends to obey, agrees and she herself is already beginning to inspire that she "needs sex." And if she does not have sex, then she begins to hide it, to be shy and complex. There is also a logical explanation for this compliance: a woman was created for the family, she still has a desire to have a husband, a man in whom one can find protection and help, to be the successor of the human race. She may not be aware of it, but her primary purpose - to be a wife and mother - has not yet been completely killed in her. She subconsciously needs at least some kind of family, which means at least some kind of relationship.

The concept of family is too often replaced by the concept of "sex". Probably, such rampant homosexuality now is also the result of the need for sex: a family is not needed - a sexual partner is needed, and it is better to have sex with someone barren, without burdening yourself with children. Yes, homosexuals sometimes have a strange desire to take someone else's child to raise. But the underlying reason for this is not at all that a homosexual man wants to feel like a mother, or a woman wants to have a child without giving birth herself. Most likely, this is just a desire to raise another homosexual with whom it will be possible to have sex.

Let's move away from the topic of homosexuality and return to the so-called "freedom" modern woman.

The main delusion of our time is to believe that a woman is free for the first time in the entire existence of mankind, and before that she was almost in slavery. Allegedly, she was not free, but now she is free. Right now, from all sides they are trying to force a woman to do what has always been alien to her. They convince her that she must have free sex without family and marriage, that she must have an abortion and kill her unborn children, they convince her that she must provide for herself, and at the same time provide for her husband, be sure to work, be sure to make a career, otherwise she will look like a loser . Even in such a powerful medium as cinema, a scornful look is often given to the housewife, because she is not a PhD and not a business woman. A woman begins to seem flawed to herself because she gave up her career as a violinist or scientist for the sake of her family and children.

The struggle for a woman's right to be "like a man" is a humiliation of a woman. We are already equal before God, we will be equally responsible for our actions, good and bad. Another thing is that we have different purposes. From time immemorial, a woman has been an assistant to a man, a mother and educator of his children, a keeper hearth, inspirer to exploits. The man knew that there was a strong rear behind him, a house in which they were waiting for him, and his duty was to protect this house, provide materially, protect and store it. A woman was proud of a man, her husband, just as a man was proud of a woman - his wife and assistant, thanks to whom his family does not stop. The man shed blood on the battlefield, the woman shed blood while giving birth to his children. The man made discoveries, invented new machines to make life easier, the woman took care of his house every day and raised new men who became the successors of their fathers. Both man and woman worked and shared the fruits of their labor. They understood the need for each other. Now this is almost gone and I cannot believe that women's emancipation has achieved something good and useful for humanity. The emancipation of women has only led to the fact that now women and men have ceased to be needed by each other in everything except sex. It's not just sad, it's the most real disaster, which for some reason is considered to be a "victory".

Alas, a modern woman has no choice, she has already been placed in such conditions when it is easier for her not to be a woman. Personally, I do not want to do what men do: participate in elections, go into politics, lead anyone, serve in the army, etc. A man is by nature a leader, let him remain. If a man in modern world he cannot play the role of a leader - this is his problem, I am not going to replace him. If men have become so weak that they cannot be the first, then let them mobilize and learn again what they have forgotten. And when men learn to be men again, women can become women. Only under such conditions do we have a chance to avoid the complete degradation of human society.

The problem of gender inequality in different cultures is very significant and worthy of attention. The general pattern around the world is that men have higher status and power than women. However, this general trend in different cultures has its own specifics (Rosaldo, Lamphere, 1974).

The level of injustice that captures gender inequality is best illustrated by a number of indicators: "Women make up half the world's population, they account for two-thirds of total working time, they receive one-tenth of the total share of world income and own one-hundredth of the world's private property" ( Frankenhaeuser, Lundberg, Chesney, 1991, p. 257).

What is the reason for these differences? There are many theories on this (for a review, see Gailey, 1987). However, the arguments and reasoning confirming the correctness of these theories are contradictory. The emergence of such theories was largely inspired by Marxist ideology rather than facts. There is probably a grain of truth in every theory, but the reality is that no convincing theory has yet been created. Despite this, the following explanation seems to be the most reasonable answer to this question. We will discuss this issue in more detail in Chapter 5. Now we will only briefly outline some of the provisions.

Cultures differ in the degree of gender inequality. Even in those cultures where the ideal of equality is openly declared (for example, in mainland China), the actual practice is far from this ideal. The trend towards equality between men and women is stronger in communal societies than in highly stratified societies (Etienne and Leacock, 1980; Lebra, 1984). In communal communities, most likely, there is a hierarchy of interchangeability and complementarity of male and female roles. In stratified societies, the tendency is more pronounced for a woman to "know her place."

Socio-ecological inequalities of cultures and inequalities of sexes are correlated with each other, and exploitation based on sex is often consistent with ecological exploitation.

For example, in those regions of Africa where the inhabitants do not profess Islam, the status of women in comparison with the status of men was much more equal in rights until the conquering colonizers came to them (Etienne, Leacock, 1980). Under colonization, there was exploitation, and the level of gender inequality increased. In addition, religious institutions often contributed to the persistence of inequality by preaching rigid religious dogmas (Iglitzin and Ross, 1976), as well as by the very content of the male-dominated religious hierarchy. Islamic and Catholic religious denominations are especially inclined to support the principle of gender inequality among their believers (ibid., 1976).

In what areas are men and women relatively equal in relation to each other? One measure of gender inequality is the percentage of female illiteracy. In general, it is preferable that this figure be the same for men and women, as is the case with the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland. In many developing countries, there are far more uneducated women than men. Even in the United States, women did not reach the level of education of men until the 1970s!

Another measure of equality is percentage women in leadership positions. Globally, this figure is well below 50 percent (with 48 percent in Switzerland and 28 percent in Austria). In most other countries, these figures are even lower. In the United States, this figure is 17%, in Islamic countries it is also very low. In South Korea it is 2%, in Gann -3%.

The next indicator is the percentage of income levels of men and women. Treiman and Ross (Treiman and Ross, 1983) compiled an extensive statistical compilation of industrialized countries. According to these data, the best ratio for these indicators is occupied by Germany (where women receive 74% of men's wages) and the Scandinavian countries (Sweden - 69%, Finland - 68%, Norway - 63%, although in Denmark - only 57%). In most Western European countries, a woman's salary is about two-thirds of that of a man. The data for the United States presented in this report is 57%. Note that these are averages, and the picture for different professions differs from the average depending on the place of work, region, ethnic group, age group, etc. However, in general, the level of women's wages is lower than that of men. On the other hand, worldwide, the mortality rate for men is higher than for women. In Northern Ireland, the ratio of these indicators is 9 to 1. In the USA - 3.3 to 1, although in Denmark it is 1.1 to 1. Men are also more likely to die in car accidents. In Chile the ratio is 4.8 to 1, in the United States it is 2.7 to 1. Iceland is an exception in this regard, where the ratio is 1 to 1. Again, these numbers represent averages and the trend continues for men to engage in more dangerous activities. activities than women.